If you smoke, you’ d better hurry. From July 1st pubs all over England will, by law, be no-smoking areas. So will restaurants, offices and even company cars, if more than one person uses them. England’ s smokers are following a well-trodden path. The other three bits of the United Kingdom have already banned smoking in almost all enclosed public spaces, and there are anti-smoking laws of varying strictness over most of Western Europe. The smoker’ s journey from glamour through toleration to suspicion is finally reaching its end in pariah status.
But behind this public-health success story lies a darker tale. Poorer people are much more likely to smoke than richer ones—a change from the 1950s, when professionals and laborers were equally keen. Today only 15% of men in the highest professional classes smoke, but 42% of unskined workers do. Despite punitive taxation—20 cigarettes cost around ￡ 5.00 ( $10.00), three-quarters of which is tax—55% of single mothers on benefits smoke. The figure for homeless men is even higher; for hard-drug users it is practically 100%. The message that smoking kills has been heard, it seems, but not by all.
Having defeated the big killers of the past—want, exposure, poor sanitation—governments all over the developed world are turning their attention to diseases that stem mostly from how individuals choose to live their lives. But the same deafness afflicts the same people when they are strongly encouraged to give up other sorts of unhealthy behavior. The lower down they are on practically any pecking order--job prestige, income, education, background-the more likely people are to be fat and unfit, and to drink too much.
That tempts governments to shout ever louder in an attempt to get the public to listenand nowhere do they do so more aggressively than in Britain. One reason is that pecking orders matter more than in most other rich countries: income distribution is very unequal and the unemployed, disaffected, ill-educated rump is comparatively large. Another reason is the frustration of a government addicted to targets, which often aim not only to improve something but to lessen inequality in the process. A third is that the National Health Service is free to patients, and paying for those who have arguably brought their ill-health on themselves grows alarmingly costly.
Britain’s aggressiveness, however, may be pointless, even counter-productive. There is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting. It irritates the majority who are already behaving responsibly, and it may also undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that they have an ultra-cautious margin of error built in.
Such hectoring may also be missing the root cause of the problem. According to Mr. Marmot, who cites research on groups as diverse as baboons in captivity, British civil servants and Oscar nominees, the higher rates of iii health among those in more modest walks of life can be attributed to what he calls the "status syndrome". People in privileged positions think they are worth the effort of behaving healthily, and find the will-power to do so. The implication is that it is easier to improve a person’ s health by weakening the connection between social position and health than by targeting behavior directly. Same public-health experts speak of social cohesion, support for families and better education for all. These are bigger undertakings than a bossy campaign; but more effective, and quieter.
The word "pariah"( line 6 ,paragraph 1 ) is closest in meaning to

A:prohibition. B:strictness. C:pardon. D:punishment.

If you smoke, you’ d better hurry. From July 1st pubs all over England will, by law, be no-smoking areas. So will restaurants, offices and even company cars, if more than one person uses them. England’s smokers are following a well-trodden path. The other three bits of the United Kingdom have already banned smoking in almost all enclosed public spaces, and there are anti-smoking laws of varying strictness over most of Western Europe. The smoker’s journey from glamour through toleration to suspicion is finally reaching its end in pariah status.
But behind this pubhc-health success story lies a darker tale. Poorer people are much more likely to smoke than richer ones--a change from the 1950s, when professionals and laborers were equally keen. Today only 15% of men in the highest professional classes smoke, but 42% of unskilled workers do. Despite punitive taxation--20 cigarettes cost around ￡ 5.00 ( $10.00), three-quarters of which is tax--55% of single mothers on benefits smoke. The figure for homeless men is even higher; for hard-drug users it is practically 100%. The message that smoking kills has been heard, it seems, but not by all.
Having defeated the big killers of the past--want, exposure, poor sanitation-- governments all over the developed world are turning their attention to diseases that stem mostly from how individuals choose to live their lives. But the same deafness afflicts the same people when they are strongly encouraged to give up other sorts of unhealthy behavior. The lower down they are on practically any pecking order--job prestige, income, education, background-the more likely people are to be fat and unfit, and to drink too much.
That tempts governments to shout ever louder in an attempt to get the public to listen- and nowhere do they do so more aggressively than in Britain. One reason is that pecking orders matter more than in most other rich countries : income distribution is very unequal and the unemployed, disaffected, ill-educated rump is comparatively large. Another reason is the frustration of a government addicted to targets, which often aim not only to improve something but to lessen inequality in the process. A third is that the National Health Service is free to patients, and paying for those who have arguably brought their ill-health on themselves grows alarmingly costly.
Britain’s aggressiveness, however, may be pointless, even counter-productive. There is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting. It irritates the majority who are already behaving responsibly, and it may also undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that they have an ultra-cautious margin of error built in.
Such hectoring may also be missing the root cause of the problem. According to Mr. Marmot, who cites research on groups as diverse as baboons in captivity, British civil servants and Oscar nominees, the higher rates of ill health among those in more modest walks of life can be attributed to what he calls the "status syndrome". People in privileged positions think they are worth the effort of behaving healthily, and find the will-power to do so. The implication is that it is easier to improve a person’s health by weakening the connection between social position and health than by targeting behavior directly. Some public-health experts speak of social cohesion, support for families and better education for all. These are bigger undertakings than a bossy campaign; but more effective, and quieter.

A:prohibition B:strictness C:pardon D:punishment

On April 4th an alert went out around the University of Texas at Austin. Police had received a report of an Asian male, apparently carrying two weapons, near the university’s main gym. Half an hour later an update came: the subject had been located. He was a member of the military training corps, and the guns were replicas.
Phew. But that is the kind of situation that has gun opponents worried about a new bill working its way through the Texas legislature. The measure would allow people to carry concealed weapons on campus, as long as they have the proper license. That is currently prohibited in about half of the states, including Texas, although Texas lets individual universities opt out of the prohibition if they have their hearts set on it. Measures to overturn blanket campus prohibitions have popped up in a number of states this year, including Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Tennessee.
This is, of course, contentious. Gun proponents argue that concealed weapons can make public places safer. They point to an incident from 2007, when a heavily armed gunman entered a Colorado church. He killed two people before one of the congregants, a former policewoman, managed to shoot him. Opponents respond that people with concealed weapons might accidentally make things worse in fraught (or just drunken) situations. At a hearing in Austin in March dozens of witnesses waited to testify, with high emotions on both sides. Students said that the idea frightened them. Those in favour spoke of the right to self-defence.
But the issue at hand in these bills is not concealed guns exactly. Most states give people the right to have them, although there are certain places, such as airports and primary schools, where the right is limited. The logic is that these spaces have special security concerns. But are university campuses not special too Critics of the legislation reckon that they are, given the youth of the population, and the emotional tensions of the environment.
The critics have notched up some victories. On April 18th the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, vetoed that state’s bill to allow "concealed carry" on campus. Earlier this month the Tennessee measure was shelved in committee. The Texas bill, after sailing through the House, seemed to stall in the state Senate. But on May 9th it made it through, after Republicans attached it to a bill intended to raise extra money for state universities. That bill passed and now goes back to the House. It is likely to pass, and then to be signed into law by the governor, Rick Perry. "I would argue that Texas is [already] a pretty gun-friendly state," said John Whitmire, a Democratic state senator from Houston, while chairing the March hearing. It looks like it.
According to the text, we can predict that ______.

A:the prohibition on campus certainly will be overturned in Texas B:carrying concealed weapons on campus in Texas may become a law C:the bill about campus weapons had been shelved in Texas D:the governor of California is in favor of the new bill

Passage Two
Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks. Both products have been known to kill people. The hazards of drinking too much alcohol are as bad as or worse than the hazards of smoking too many cigarettes. All right then, let’s pass a law closing the liquor stores and the bars in this country. Let’s put an end once and for all to the ruinous disease from which as many as 10 million Americans currently suffer alcoholism.
But wait. We’ve already tried that. For 13 years, between 1920 and 1933 there were no liquor stores anywhere in the United States. They were shut down abolished by an amendment (修正案) to the Constitution (to 18th) and by a law of Congress (the Volstead Act). After January 20, 1920, there was supposed to be no more manufacturing, selling, or transporting of "intoxicating liquors." Without any more liquor, people could not drink it. And if they did not drink it, how could they get drunk There would be no more dangers to the public welfare from drunkenness and alcoholism. It was all very logical. And yet prohibition of liquor, beer, and wine did not work. Why
Because, law or no law, millions of people still liked to drink alcohol. And they were willing to take risks to get it. They were not about to change their tastes and habits just because of a change in the law. And gangs of liquor smugglers made it easy to buy an illegal drink. They smuggled millions of gallons of the outlawed beverages across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Crime and drunkenness were both supposed to decline as a result of prohibition. Instead people drank more alcohol than ever-- often poisonous alcohol.
On December 5th, 1993 they repealed (撤销) prohibition by ratifying (批准) the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

A:the Congress was wise to repeal prohibition B:the Prohibition Era was characterized by a decrease in crime and drunkenness C:during Prohibition, Americans stopped drinking D:laws should be passed to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages

Passage Two
Do we need laws that prevent us from running risks with our lives If so, then perhaps laws are needed prohibiting the sale of cigarettes and alcoholic drinks. Both products have been known to kill people. The hazards of drinking too much alcohol are as bad as or worse than the hazards of smoking too many cigarettes. All right then, let’s pass a law closing the liquor stores and the bars in this country. Let’s put an end once and for all to the ruinous disease from which as many as 10 million Americans currently suffer alcoholism.
But wait. We’ve already tried that. For 13 years, between 1920 and 1933 there were no liquor stores anywhere in the United States. They were shut down abolished by an amendment (修正案) to the Constitution (to 18th) and by a law of Congress (the Volstead Act). After January 20, 1920, there was supposed to be no more manufacturing, selling, or transporting of "intoxicating liquors." Without any more liquor, people could not drink it. And if they did not drink it, how could they get drunk There would be no more dangers to the public welfare from drunkenness and alcoholism. It was all very logical. And yet prohibition of liquor, beer, and wine did not work. Why
Because, law or no law, millions of people still liked to drink alcohol. And they were willing to take risks to get it. They were not about to change their tastes and habits just because of a change in the law. And gangs of liquor smugglers made it easy to buy an illegal drink. They smuggled millions of gallons of the outlawed beverages across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Crime and drunkenness were both supposed to decline as a result of prohibition. Instead people drank more alcohol than ever-- often poisonous alcohol.
On December 5th, 1993 they repealed (撤销) prohibition by ratifying (批准) the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

A:the Congress was wise to repeal prohibition B:the Prohibition Era was characterized by a decrease in crime and drunkenness C:during Prohibition, Americans stopped drinking D:laws should be passed to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages

During prohibition, people ______.

A:lived in fear of the law B:were willing to risk arrest for the pleasure of liquor C:recklessly endangered their communities D:were respectful of the legal sanctions placed on them

During prohibition, illegal alcohol was ______.

A:sold openly B:no longer a temptation C:a major factor in the passage of the Volstead Act D:brought across the Mexican and Canadian borders

If the shipment date is“on or about May 10”．then the goods can be shipped between( )．

A:May 4 to May 14 B:May 5 to May 15 C:before May 10 D:May 9 to May 11

The L/C stipulates that shipment date: on or about May 20, 2003, it means that the foods can be shipped on board the vessel between ( ).

A:May 15 to May 25 B:May 20 to May 25 C:May 20 to May 30 D:May 10 to May 20