单选集
单选集
After decades of exile from U.S. courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts.
Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991 President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence.
In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence.
A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions.
Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to lab oratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results.
This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true.
Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truth can be hard to swallow.
David Faigrnan of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal court’s decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans. would be overturned in federal courts across U. S. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more’ expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
Why has President Bush’s ban on lie detector evidence in military courts in 1991 been over-turned
A:Because lie detection is surrounded by uncertainties. B:Because it restricts the defendant’ rights to prove that they are innocent. C:Bemuse 12 U.S. states also allow lie detection evidence to be heard in courts. D:Because federal judges from the Supreme Court make their decisions on the basis of lie detection.
Text 3
After decades of exile from US courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the US Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts.
Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991, President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the US Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence.
In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled ’that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence.
A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions.
Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to laboratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results.
This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true.
Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truths can be hard to swallow.
David Faigman of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal courts decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans would be overturned in federal courts across US. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
A:Because lie detection is surrounded by uncertainties B:Because it restricts the defendants' rights to prove that they are innocent C:Because 12 states also allow lie detection evidence to be heard in courts D:Because federal judges from the Supreme Court make their decisions on the basis of lie detection evidence
Text 3 After decades of exile from US courts, the science of lie detection is gaining new acceptance. But the federal government wants to put a stop to it, and the US Supreme Court has now agreed to consider a request from the Department of Justice to bar the technology from military courts. Uncertainties surround the science of lie detection, which uses a device called polygraph. In 1991, President George Bush banned lie detector evidence in military courts. But that ban has since been overturned by the US Court of Military Appeals, which ruled that it restricts defendants’ rights to present evidence of their innocence. In the past two years, some federal courts have also ruled ’that polygraph evidence can be heard. This follows a decision by the Supreme Court in 1993 that gave federal judges more discretion to decide on the admissibility of evidence. A polygraph consists of monitors for pulse rate, sweating and breathing rate. The device is supposed to uncover lies by recording increases in these measures as the subject answers questions. Critics have always argued that cunning defendants can control their physiological responses and sway polygraph results. But supporters of the technique argue that recent research has found it to be reliable. A psychologist named Charles Honts at a state university in Idaho, points to laboratory studies, some of them being his own, in which student-subjects were offered cash to sway the test results. This argument is rejected by Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at a Boston university. "There is a huge difference between students in a lab and a defendant," he says. Guilty defendants have time in which to rehearse their lies, and can even come to believe them to be true. Saxe believes that the entire theoretical basis of lie detection is invalid. "It assumes you will be more nervous lying than telling the truth." But he says that for some people lies are trivial, while certain truths can be hard to swallow. David Faigman of the University of California says that if the Supreme Court upholds the military appeal courts decision to allow polygraph evidence, polygraph bans would be overturned in federal courts across US. "That will put a big burden on judges to understand the science, and lead to a lot more expert testimony in the courts," he predicts. The justice department fears that this will greatly increase the cost of trials.
Why has President Bush's ban on lie detector evidence in military courts in 1991 been overturned（）A:Because lie detection is surrounded by uncertainties B:Because it restricts the defendants' rights to prove that they are innocent C:Because 12 states also allow lie detection evidence to be heard in courts D:Because federal judges from the Supreme Court make their decisions on the basis of lie detection evidence
The way (which) the different kinds of rock (lie on) (one another) helps to tell the story (of long ago).（ ）
A:which B:lie on C:one another D:of long ago
What is exactly a lie Is it anything we say which we know is untrue Or is it something more than that For example, suppose a friend wants to borrow some money from you, you say: "I wish I could help you but I’m short of money myself." In fact, you are not short of money but your friend is in the habit of not paying his debts and you don’t want to hurt his feelings by reminding him of this. Is this really a lie A scientific study of lying shows women are better liars (说谎者) than men, particularly when telling a "white lie", such as when a woman at a party tells another woman that she likes her dress when she really thinks it looks terrible. However, this is only one side of the story. Other researches show that men are more likely to tell more serious lies, such as making a promise which they have no intention of fulfilling. This is the kind of lie politicians and businessmen are supposed to be particularly skilled at: the lie from which the man hopes to profit or gain in some way.
Research has also been done into the way people’s behavior changes in a number of small, unimportant ways when they lie. It has been found that if they are sitting down at the same time, they tend to move about in their chairs more than usual. To the trained observer they are saying, "I wish I were somewhere else now./
A:there is a simple way of finding out if someone is lying B:people’s behaviors sometimes can tell us they are lying C:people often repeat what they are saying when telling a lie D:in some situations women are most likely to tell a lie
One of the world’s (largest) salt mines (lie) directly (under) the (city) Detroit.（ ）
A:largest B:lie C:under D:city
Communication technologies are far from equal when it comes to conveying the truth. The first study to compare honesty across a range of communications media has found that people are twice as likely to tell lies in phone conversations as they are in E-mails. The fact that E-mails are automatically recorded--and can come back to haunt(困扰) you--appears to be the key to the finding.
Jeff Hancock of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, asked 30 students to keep a communications diary for a week. In it they noted the number of conversations or E-mail exchanges they had lasting more than 10 minutes, and confessed to how many lies they told. Hancock then worked out the number of lies per conversation for each medium. He found that lies made up 14 percent of E-mails, 21 percent of instant messages, 27 percent of face-to-face interactions and an astonishing 37 percent of phone calls.
His results, to be presented at the conference on human-computer interaction in Vienna, Austria, in April, have surprised psychologists. Some expected E-mails to be the biggest liars, reasoning that because deception makes people uncomfortable, the detachment(非直接接触) of emailing would make it easier to lie. Others expected people to lie more in face-to-face exchanges because we are most practiced at that form of communication.
But Hancock says it is also crucial whether a conversation is being recorded and could be reread, and whether it occurs in real time. People appear to be afraid to lie when they know the communication could later be used to hold them to account, he says. This is why fewer lies appear in E-mail than on the phone.
People are also more likely to lie in real time--in an instant message or phone call, say--than if they have time to think of a response, says Hancock. He found many lies are spontaneous(脱口而出) responses to an unexpected demand, such as: "Do you like my dress"
Hancock hopes his research will help companies work out the best ways for their employees to communicate. For instance, the phone might be the best medium for sales where employees are encouraged to stretch the truth. But given his result, work assessment, where honesty is a priority, might be best done using E-mail.
A:people are less likely to lie in instant messages B:people are unlikely to lie in face-to-face interactions C:people are most likely to lie in E-mail communication D:people are twice as likely to lie in phone conversations
Communication technologies are far from equal when it comes to conveying the truth. The first study to compare honesty across a range of communications media has found that people are twice as likely to tell lies in phone conversations as they are in E-mails. The fact that E-mails are automatically recorded--and can come back to haunt(困扰) you--appears to be the key to the finding.
Jeff Hancock of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, asked 30 students to keep a communications diary for a week. In it they noted the number of conversations or E-mail exchanges they had lasting more than 10 minutes, and confessed to how many lies they told. Hancock then worked out the number of lies per conversation for each medium. He found that lies made up 14 percent of E-mails, 21 percent of instant messages, 27 percent of face-to-face interactions and an astonishing 37 percent of phone calls.
His results, to be presented at the conference on human-computer interaction in Vienna, Austria, in April, have surprised psychologists. Some expected E-mails to be the biggest liars, reasoning that because deception makes people uncomfortable, the detachment(非直接接触) of emailing would make it easier to lie. Others expected people to lie more in face-to-face exchanges because we are most practiced at that form of communication.
But Hancock says it is also crucial whether a conversation is being recorded and could be reread, and whether it occurs in real time. People appear to be afraid to lie when they know the communication could later be used to hold them to account, he says. This is why fewer lies appear in E-mail than on the phone.
People are also more likely to lie in real time--in an instant message or phone call, say--than if they have time to think of a response, says Hancock. He found many lies are spontaneous(脱口而出) responses to an unexpected demand, such as: "Do you like my dress"
Hancock hopes his research will help companies work out the best ways for their employees to communicate. For instance, the phone might be the best medium for sales where employees are encouraged to stretch the truth. But given his result, work assessment, where honesty is a priority, might be best done using E-mail.
A:people are less likely to lie in instant messages B:people are unlikely to lie in face-to-face interactions C:people are most likely to lie in E-mail communication D:people are twice as likely to lie in phone conversations
