Which of the following is reasonable in explaining the integration

A:Integration is making choices about where to concentrate resource So sacrifice is inevitabl B:Since the project managements are implemented by overlapping and iteratively, integration is neccessar C:“Trade-off” means “give and take”. It is necessary in dealing with various stakeholder D:The project deliverables are not integrated with ongoing operations of the customer's organizatio

A month ago, the British government announced a plan to keep terrorist suspects indefinitely under house arrest (1) the home secretary’s say-so, It has been attacked from all sides ever since. This week the government backtracked. Under the Prevention of Terrorism bill, (2) to Parliament this week, house arrest would (3) a potential (4) in the government’s ever-expanding anti-terrorist arsenal, but the government would first have to (5) of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing a right to liberty. Parliament would have to vote on that.
The government could do this (6) the terrorist threat to Britain, already described by the government as " (7) ", got even worse. Even then, the powers would remain (8) by political and judicial safeguards. Before the home secretary could make a house-arrest order, he would have to be satisfied on the (9) of probabilities--no longer on the basis of "reasonable suspicion --that the suspect has been "involved in a terrorism-related activity". He would also have to be (10) that such an order was "strictly required". The period of house-arrest will be limited to a maximum of six months, extendable through a new house-arrest order. Within seven days of its being imposed, the High Court would have to confirm that the home secretary had " (11) grounds" for making such an order. Even if it were so satisfied, the case would go on to a full court (12)
The bill also provides for a whole range of lesser restrictions including tagging, curfews, a ban on association with specified people, prohibitions on using phones, restrictions on travel, and so on. (13) to meet the threat (14) by each suspect and limited to a renewable period of 12 months, these would not be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as house arrest. Nor would they require (15) from the European convention.
But the new orders, including house arrest, would be used only where a suspected terrorist could not be prosecuted (16) because the evidence against him was not admissible in court, or because it might (17) intelligence sources or (18) techniques. Charles Clarke insists that he would prefer to prosecute. (19) the home secretary is considering further anti-terrorist legislation, including making it (20) to be involved in the preparation or commission of terrorist acts.

13（）

A:sensible B:rational C:logical D:reasonable

A month ago, the British government announced a plan to keep terrorist suspects indefinitely under house arrest (1) the home secretary’s say-so, It has been attacked from all sides ever since. This week the government backtracked. Under the Prevention of Terrorism bill, (2) to Parliament this week, house arrest would (3) a potential (4) in the government’s ever-expanding anti-terrorist arsenal, but the government would first have to (5) of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing a right to liberty. Parliament would have to vote on that.
The government could do this (6) the terrorist threat to Britain, already described by the government as " (7) ", got even worse. Even then, the powers would remain (8) by political and judicial safeguards. Before the home secretary could make a house-arrest order, he would have to be satisfied on the (9) of probabilities--no longer on the basis of "reasonable suspicion --that the suspect has been "involved in a terrorism-related activity". He would also have to be (10) that such an order was "strictly required". The period of house-arrest will be limited to a maximum of six months, extendable through a new house-arrest order. Within seven days of its being imposed, the High Court would have to confirm that the home secretary had " (11) grounds" for making such an order. Even if it were so satisfied, the case would go on to a full court (12)
The bill also provides for a whole range of lesser restrictions including tagging, curfews, a ban on association with specified people, prohibitions on using phones, restrictions on travel, and so on. (13) to meet the threat (14) by each suspect and limited to a renewable period of 12 months, these would not be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as house arrest. Nor would they require (15) from the European convention.
But the new orders, including house arrest, would be used only where a suspected terrorist could not be prosecuted (16) because the evidence against him was not admissible in court, or because it might (17) intelligence sources or (18) techniques. Charles Clarke insists that he would prefer to prosecute. (19) the home secretary is considering further anti-terrorist legislation, including making it (20) to be involved in the preparation or commission of terrorist acts.

3（）

A:sensible B:rational C:logical D:reasonable

Section Ⅰ Use of English Directions: Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
A month ago, the British government announced a plan to keep terrorist suspects indefinitely under house arrest (1) the home secretary’s say-so, It has been attacked from all sides ever since. This week the government backtracked. Under the Prevention of Terrorism bill, (2) to Parliament this week, house arrest would (3) a potential (4) in the government’s ever-expanding anti-terrorist arsenal, but the government would first have to (5) of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights guaranteeing a right to liberty. Parliament would have to vote on that. The government could do this (6) the terrorist threat to Britain, already described by the government as " (7) ", got even worse. Even then, the powers would remain (8) by political and judicial safeguards. Before the home secretary could make a house-arrest order, he would have to be satisfied on the (9) of probabilities--no longer on the basis of "reasonable suspicion --that the suspect has been "involved in a terrorism-related activity". He would also have to be (10) that such an order was "strictly required". The period of house-arrest will be limited to a maximum of six months, extendable through a new house-arrest order. Within seven days of its being imposed, the High Court would have to confirm that the home secretary had " (11) grounds" for making such an order. Even if it were so satisfied, the case would go on to a full court (12) The bill also provides for a whole range of lesser restrictions including tagging, curfews, a ban on association with specified people, prohibitions on using phones, restrictions on travel, and so on. (13) to meet the threat (14) by each suspect and limited to a renewable period of 12 months, these would not be subject to the same judicial scrutiny as house arrest. Nor would they require (15) from the European convention. But the new orders, including house arrest, would be used only where a suspected terrorist could not be prosecuted (16) because the evidence against him was not admissible in court, or because it might (17) intelligence sources or (18) techniques. Charles Clarke insists that he would prefer to prosecute. (19) the home secretary is considering further anti-terrorist legislation, including making it (20) to be involved in the preparation or commission of terrorist acts.

Read the following text. Choose the best word (s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B,C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1. 10（）

A:sensible B:rational C:logical D:reasonable

A new anti-cheating system for counting the judges’scores in ice skating is flawed, according to leading sports specialists. Ice skating’s governing body announced the new rules last week after concerns that a judge at the Winter Olympics may have been unfairly influenced.
Initially the judges in the pairs figure-skating event at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City voted 5 to 4 to give the gold medal to a Russian pair, even though they had a fall during their routine. But the International Skating Union suspended the French judge for failing to reveal that she had been put under pressure to vote for the Russians. The International Olympics Committee then decided to give a second gold to the Canadian runners-up (亚军).
The ISU, skating’s governing body, now says it intends to change the rules. In future 14 judges will judge each event, but only 7 of their scores—selected at random—will count.
The ISU won’t finally approve the new system until it meets in June but already UK Sport, the British Government’s sports body, has expressed reservations. "I remain to be convinced that the random selection system would offer the guarantees that everyone concerned with ethical sport is looking for", says Jerry Bingham, UK Sport’s head of ethics (伦理).
A random system can still be manipulated, says Mark Dixon, a specialist on sports statistics from the Royal Statistical Society in London. "The score of one or two judges who have been nobbled (收到贿赂) may still be in the seven selected."
Many other sports that have judges, including diving, gymnastics, and synchronized swimming, have a system that discards the highest and lowest scores. If a judge was under pressure to favour a particular team, they would tend to give it very high scores and mark down the opposition team, so their scores wouldn’t count. It works for diving, says Jeff Cook, a member of the international government body’s technical committee. "If you remove those at the top and bottom you’re left with those in the middle, so you’re getting a reasonable average."
Since the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, diving has tightened up in its system still further. Two separate panels of judges score different rounds of diving during top competitions. Neither panel knows the scores given by the other. "We have done this to head off any suggestion of bias," says Cook.
Bingham urged the ISU to consider other options. "This should involve examining the way in which other sports deal with the problem of adjudicating (裁定) on matter of style and presentation," he says.
Which of the following is NOT true of the scoring system for diving

A:It is more biased. B:It is more reasonable. C:It is fairer. D:It is tighter.

The price of this machine is not reasonable.（　）

A:helpful B:kind C:fair D:effective

The price of this machine is not reasonable.

A:helpful B:kind C:fair D:effective

A new anti-cheating system for counting the judges’ scores in ice skating is flawed, according to leading sports specialists. Ice skating’s governing body announced the new rules last week after concerns that a judge at the Winter Olympics may have been unfairly influenced.
Initially the judges in the pairs figure-skating event at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City voted 5 to 4 to give the gold medal to a Russian pair, even though they had a fall during their routine. But the International Skating Union suspended the French judge for failing to reveal that she had been put under pressure to vote for the Russians. The International Olympics Committee then decided to give a second gold to the Canadian runners-up (亚军) .
The ISU, skating’s governing body, now says it intends to change the rules. In future 14 judges will judge each event, but only 7 of their scores-selected at random-will count.
The ISU won’t finally approve the new system until it meets in June but already UK Sport, the British Government’s sports body, has expressed reservations. "I remain to be convinced that the random selection system would offer the guarantees that everyone concerned with ethical sport is looking for", says Jerry Bingham, UK Sport’s head of ethics (伦理) .
A random system can still be manipulated, says Mark Dixon, a specialist on sports statistics from the Royal Statistical Society in London. "The score of one or two judges who have been hobbled (受到贿赂) may still be in the seven selected."
Many other sports that have judges, including diving, gymnastics, and synchronized swimming, have a system that discards the highest and lowest scores. If a judge was under pressure to favour a particular team, they would tend to give it very high scores and mark down the opposition team, so their scores wouldn’t count. It works for diving, says Jeff Cook, a member of the international government body’s technical committee. "If you remove those at the top and bottom you’re left with those in the middle, so you’re getting a reasonable average."
Since the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, diving has tightened up in its system still further. Two separate panels of judges score different rounds of diving during top competitions. Neither panel knows the scores given by the other. "We have done this to head off any suggestion of bias," says Cook.
Bingham urged the ISU to consider other options. "This should involve examining the way in which other sports deal with the problem of adjudicating (裁定) on matter of style and presentation," he says.
Which of the following is NOT true of the scoring system for diving

A:It is more biased. B:It is more reasonable. C:It is fairer. D:It is tighter.

第二篇 Star Quality A new anti-cheating system for counting the judges’ scores in ice skating is flawed，according to leading sports specialists．Ice skating’s governing body announced the new rules last week after concerns that a judge at the Winter Olympics may have been unfairly influenced． Initially the judges in the pairs figure—skating event at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City voted 5 to 4 to give the gold medal to a Russian pair，even though they had a fall during their routine．But the International Skating Union suspended the French judge for failing to reveal that she had been put under pressure to Vote for the Russians．The International Olympics Committee then decided to give a second gold to the Canadian runners-up(亚军)． The ISU，skating’s governing body, now says it intends to change the rules．In future 14 judges will judge each event，but only 7 of their scores--selected at random--will count, The ISU won’t finally approve the new system until it meets in June but already UK Sport．the British Government’s sports body．has expressed reservations．“I remain to be convinced that the random selection system would offer the guarantees that everyone concerned with ethical sport is looking for’’，says Jerry Bingham，UK Sport’s head of ethics(伦理)． A random system can still be manipulated，says Mark Dixon，a specialist on sports statistics from the Royal Statistical Society in London．“The score of one or two judges who have been nobbled(受到贿赂)may still be in the seven selected．” Many other sports that have judges，including diving，gymnastics，and synchronized swimming．have a system that discards the highest and lowest scores．If a judge was under pressure to favour a particular team，they would tend to give it very high scores and mark down the opposition team，so their scores wouldn’t count．It works for diving，says Jeff Cook，a member of the international government body’s technical committee．“If you remove those at the top and bottom you’re left with those in the middle，SO you’re getting a reasonable average．’’ Since the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, diving has tightened up in its system still further．Two separate panels of judges score different rounds of diving during top competitions．Neither panel knows the scores given by the other．‘’We have done this to head off any suggestion of bias．”says Cook． Bingham urged the ISU to consider other options．“Tms should involve examining the way in which other sports deal with the problem of adjudicating(裁定)on matter of style and presentation，”he says． Which of the following is NOT true of the scoring system for diving?

A:It is more biased． B:It is more reasonable． C:It is fairer． D:It is tighter．