单选集
单选集
Text 3
Last week, Utah federal Judge Paul G. Cassell handed a 22-year sentence to a man who beat an elderly woman to death with a log. A few hours later, Judge Cassell sentenced a 25-year-old first-time drug offender to 55 years.
If you think Judge Cassell liked sentencing a small-change drug dealer to more time than a violent killer, guess again. The judge had no choice. Federal law demanded the sentence, despite Judge Cassell’s pointed questioning if there was a "rational basis" for sentencing Weldon H. Angelos, the father of two young children, to more time than he could sentence a hijacker, murder or rapist.
Blame federal mandatory minimum sentencing rules. A jury found Angelos guilty on three separate charges of possessing a firearm while he sold a half-pound of marijuana for ＄ 350. The first charge of possessing a gun during a drug transaction brought a five-year sentence--the second two charges brought 25 years each. That adds up to 55 years, so even if Angelos were found guilty of selling ＄1,050 of drugs, Judge Cassell had to follow the rules and sentence him to 55 years on the gun charges. (The judge did use a recent federal ruling in reducing the sentence for the drug-selling crimes to one day. )
Judge Cassell was right to impose the draconian sentence. If he ignored federal law, he would place himself above it.
Instead, Judge Cassell sentenced Angelus as the law directed, even as he righteously hectored Congress to rewrite federal drug laws so first-time offenders don’t serve more time than dangerous career criminals. The judge also urged Angelus’ attorney, Jerome H. Mooney, to appeal the sentence and, if appeals fail, seek a presidential commutation.
While civil-rights advocates across America protested the sentence, the Utah US Attorney’s office defended the system. To prosecutors, Angelus is no Buy Scout. Officials found some 26 empty duffel hags with marijuana residue. Local feds believed Angelus was a big drug dealer, Assistant US Attorney Robert Lund told me, and associated with a violent street gang.
Let me say this: Angelus never was a good poster boy for the movement to humanize draconian federal drug laws. Angelus turned down a plea-bargain sentence of 16 years. He is considered a first-time offender only because a juvenile gun conviction was expunged from his record. And even if Angelos didn’t wave his gun in people’s faces, he nonetheless brought a gun with him during the transactions.
But Angelos has become a national cause celebre because of Judge Cassell. There are more egregious examples of first-time offenders sentenced to decades for petty dealing, but they didn’t come before a judge vocally opposed to the heavy handed nature of federal drug sentencing.
That said, it simply doesn’t make sense that federal sentences often are tougher on small-time drug offenders than on violent criminals. But it happens all the time.
A:federal. B:separate. C:tough. D:guilty.
Text 3 Last week, Utah federal Judge Paul G. Cassell handed a 22-year sentence to a man who beat an elderly woman to death with a log. A few hours later, Judge Cassell sentenced a 25-year-old first-time drug offender to 55 years. If you think Judge Cassell liked sentencing a small-change drug dealer to more time than a violent killer, guess again. The judge had no choice. Federal law demanded the sentence, despite Judge Cassell’s pointed questioning if there was a "rational basis" for sentencing Weldon H. Angelos, the father of two young children, to more time than he could sentence a hijacker, murder or rapist. Blame federal mandatory minimum sentencing rules. A jury found Angelos guilty on three separate charges of possessing a firearm while he sold a half-pound of marijuana for ＄ 350. The first charge of possessing a gun during a drug transaction brought a five-year sentence--the second two charges brought 25 years each. That adds up to 55 years, so even if Angelos were found guilty of selling ＄1,050 of drugs, Judge Cassell had to follow the rules and sentence him to 55 years on the gun charges. (The judge did use a recent federal ruling in reducing the sentence for the drug-selling crimes to one day. ) Judge Cassell was right to impose the draconian sentence. If he ignored federal law, he would place himself above it. Instead, Judge Cassell sentenced Angelus as the law directed, even as he righteously hectored Congress to rewrite federal drug laws so first-time offenders don’t serve more time than dangerous career criminals. The judge also urged Angelus’ attorney, Jerome H. Mooney, to appeal the sentence and, if appeals fail, seek a presidential commutation. While civil-rights advocates across America protested the sentence, the Utah US Attorney’s office defended the system. To prosecutors, Angelus is no Buy Scout. Officials found some 26 empty duffel hags with marijuana residue. Local feds believed Angelus was a big drug dealer, Assistant US Attorney Robert Lund told me, and associated with a violent street gang. Let me say this: Angelus never was a good poster boy for the movement to humanize draconian federal drug laws. Angelus turned down a plea-bargain sentence of 16 years. He is considered a first-time offender only because a juvenile gun conviction was expunged from his record. And even if Angelos didn’t wave his gun in people’s faces, he nonetheless brought a gun with him during the transactions. But Angelos has become a national cause celebre because of Judge Cassell. There are more egregious examples of first-time offenders sentenced to decades for petty dealing, but they didn’t come before a judge vocally opposed to the heavy handed nature of federal drug sentencing. That said, it simply doesn’t make sense that federal sentences often are tougher on small-time drug offenders than on violent criminals. But it happens all the time.
The word "draconian" (Line 1, Paragraph 4) may probably mean（ ）A:federal. B:separate. C:tough. D:guilty.
Last week, Utah federal Judge Paul G. Cassell handed a 22-year sentence to a man who beat an elderly woman to death with a log. A few hours later, Judge Cassell sentenced a 25-year-old first-time drug offender to 55 years.
If you think Judge Cassell liked sentencing a small-change drug dealer to more time than a violent killer, guess again. The judge had no choice. Federal law demanded the sentence, despite Judge Cassell’s pointed questioning if there was a "rational basis" for sentencing Weldon H. Angelos, the father of two young children, to more time than he could sentence a hijacker, murder or rapist.
Blame federal mandatory minimum sentencing rules. A jury found Angelos guilty on three separate charges of possessing a firearm while he sold a half-pound of marijuana for ＄ 350. The first charge of possessing a gun during a drug transaction brought a five-year sentence--the second two charges brought 25 years each. That adds up to 55 years, so even if Angelos were found guilty of selling ＄1,050 of drugs, Judge Cassell had to follow the rules and sentence him to 55 years on the gun charges. (The judge did use a recent federal ruling in reducing the sentence for the drug-selling crimes to one day. )
Judge Cassell was right to impose the draconian sentence. If he ignored federal law, he would place himself above it.
Instead, Judge Cassell sentenced Angelus as the law directed, even as he righteously hectored Congress to rewrite federal drug laws so first-time offenders don’t serve more time than dangerous career criminals. The judge also urged Angelus’ attorney, Jerome H. Mooney, to appeal the sentence and, if appeals fail, seek a presidential commutation.
While civil-rights advocates across America protested the sentence, the Utah US Attorney’s office defended the system. To prosecutors, Angelus is no Buy Scout. Officials found some 26 empty duffel hags with marijuana residue. Local feds believed Angelus was a big drug dealer, Assistant US Attorney Robert Lund told me, and associated with a violent street gang.
Let me say this: Angelus never was a good poster boy for the movement to humanize draconian federal drug laws. Angelus turned down a plea-bargain sentence of 16 years. He is considered a first-time offender only because a juvenile gun conviction was expunged from his record. And even if Angelos didn’t wave his gun in people’s faces, he nonetheless brought a gun with him during the transactions.
But Angelos has become a national cause celebre because of Judge Cassell. There are more egregious examples of first-time offenders sentenced to decades for petty dealing, but they didn’t come before a judge vocally opposed to the heavy handed nature of federal drug sentencing.
That said, it simply doesn’t make sense that federal sentences often are tougher on small-time drug offenders than on violent criminals. But it happens all the time.
A:federal B:separate C:tough D:guilty
Strong bonds can exist in dating relationships. My cousin Candice and her friend Louis started dating casually last year. As the months passed, they began seeing only each other, and now they enjoy a close relationship. They are neither married or engaged but are constant companions and consider each other best friends. Candice’s friends think of them as a couple and recognize their special relationship.
Both Candice and Louis have made commitments to each other. They think of themselves as couple. However, each has the freedom to develop new friends, to seek separate social activities, to build separate careers, and to have his or her individual needs fulfilled.
Living together can be the transition from extended dating to marriage. Just recently, Louis and Candice decided to live together. They are not sure about marriage and want to try living together first. Louis has many divorced friends who had rushed into marriage. He doesn’t want to make a similar mistake. He knows that living together will not be easy, but feels he has few alternatives. Friends and family will exert pressure on the couple to get married. Louis knows that this is the worst reason to get married. He believes that living together will provide Candice and him with an opportunity to see how well each can adjust to the other’s feelings and living styles.He hopes they will discover whether they are compatible.
Louis moved into Candice’s apartment this weekend. Books, records, and clothing fit in nicely. Of course, they will have to decide what to do with two couches, two beds, twenty-two pots and pans, and duplicates of all kitchen and bath items. They have settled in as an unmarried-married couple and will have to make the same adjustments as any newlyweds.
A:having new friends B:developing individual careers C:having their social activities together all the time D:realizing separate needs
In the past, American families (36) to be quite large. Parents (37) five or more children were common. Over the years, the (38) of the family has decreased. One mason for this is an increase in the (39) of living. (40) the average, children attend schools for more years than they used to, making them (41) dependent on their families longer. Moreover, children nowadays are better (42) , and have more money to spend on (43) . The parents usually take the responsibility (44) all the expenses.
Meanwhile, families are less close than they used to be. More and more American mothers (45) away from home. The break-up of the family occurs when the parents (46) . A lot of children in the USA. live part of their young lives with only one parent. Broken families usually result (47) problems for children and parents alike. Children blame themselves when their parents separate. They grow up feeling (48) as they are moved (49) between parents. Usually one parent is responsible for raising the children. These single parents must care for the children’s emotional and psychological (50) while also supporting them financially. This is very demanding and (51) very little time for the parent’s own personal (52) . Single parents often marry other single parents. In this type of family, unrelated children are (53) to develop brother or sister relationship. The situations of many American families today are not good. However, recent signs (54) that things are getting better. The divorce rate is (55) . The rate of childbirth is rising. Perhaps Americans have learned how important families are.
A:are B:run C:work D:separate
In the past, American families (36) to be quite large. Parents (37) five or more children were common. Over the years, the (38) of the family has decreased. One mason for this is an increase in the (39) of living. (40) the average, children attend schools for more years than they used to, making them (41) dependent on their families longer. Moreover, children nowadays are better (42) , and have more money to spend on (43) . The parents usually take the responsibility (44) all the expenses.
Meanwhile, families are less close than they used to be. More and more American mothers (45) away from home. The break-up of the family occurs when the parents (46) . A lot of children in the USA. live part of their young lives with only one parent. Broken families usually result (47) problems for children and parents alike. Children blame themselves when their parents separate. They grow up feeling (48) as they are moved (49) between parents. Usually one parent is responsible for raising the children. These single parents must care for the children’s emotional and psychological (50) while also supporting them financially. This is very demanding and (51) very little time for the parent’s own personal (52) . Single parents often marry other single parents. In this type of family, unrelated children are (53) to develop brother or sister relationship. The situations of many American families today are not good. However, recent signs (54) that things are getting better. The divorce rate is (55) . The rate of childbirth is rising. Perhaps Americans have learned how important families are.
A:are B:run C:work D:separate
Common Problems, Common Solutions
The chances are that you made up your mind about smoking a long time ago — and decided it’s not for you.
The chances are equally good that you know a lot of smokers — there are, after all about 60 million of them, work with them, and get along with them very well.
And finally it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re open-minded and interested in all the various issues about smokers and nonsmokers — or you wouldn’t be reading this.
And those three things make you incredibly important today.
Because they mean that yours is the voice — not the smoker’s and not the anti-smoker’s — that will determine how much of society’s efforts should go into building walls that separate us and how much into the search for solutions that bring us together.
For one tragic result of the emphasis on building walls is the diversion of millions of dollars from scientific research on the causes and cures of diseases which, when all is said and done, still strike the nonsmoker as well as the smoker. One prominent health organization, to cite but a single instance, now spends 28 cents of every publicly contributed dollar on "education" (much of it in and-smoking propaganda) and only 2 cents on research.
There will always be some who want to build walls, who want to separate people from people, and up to a point, even these may serve society. The anti-smoking wall-builders have, to give them their due, helped to make us all more keenly aware of choice.
But our guess, and certainly our hope, is that you are among the far greatest number who know that walls are only temporary at best, and that over the long run, we can serve society’s interest better by working together in mutual accommodation.
Whatever virtue wails may have, they can never move our society toward fundamental solutions. People who work together on common problems, common solutions, can.
As is suggested, the common solution to the common problem is______.
A:to separate people from people B:to work together in mutual accommodation C:to make us more keenly aware of choice D:to serve society’s interests better
{{B}}第三篇{{/B}}
| ?
Common Problems, Common
Solutions ? ?The chances are that you made up your mind about smoking a long time ago and decided it’s not for you. ? ?The chances are equally good that you know a lot of smokers — there are, after all about 60 million of them, work with them, and get along with them very well. ? ?And finally it’s a pretty safe bet that you’re open-minded and interested in all the various issues about smokers and non-smokers — or you wouldn’t be reading this. ? ?And those three things make you incredibly(难以置信的) important today. ? ?Because they mean that yours is the voice — not the smoker’s and not the anti-smoker’s — that will determine how much of society’s efforts should go into building walls that separate us and how much into the search for solutions that bring us together. ? ?For one tragic result of the emphasis on building walls is the diversion(转移) of millions of dollars from scientific research on the causes and cures of diseases which, when all is said and done, still strike the nonsmoker as well as the smoker. One prominent(卓越的) health organization, to cite(引证) but a single instance, now spends 28 cents of every publicly contributed dollar on "education" (much of it in antismoking propaganda)and only 2 cents on research. ? ?There will always be some who want to build wails, who want to separate people from people, and up to a point, even these may serve society. The anti-smoking wall-builders have, to give them their due, helped to make us all more keenly aware of choice. ? ?But our guess, and certainly our hope, is that you are among the far greatest number who know that walls are only temporary(暂时的) at best, and that over the long run, we can serve society’s interest better by working together in mutual accommodation. ? ?Whatever virtue walls may have, they can never move our society toward fundamental solutions. People who work together on common problems, common solutions, can. |
A:to separate people from people. B:to work together in mutual accommodation. C:to make us more keenly aware of choice. D:to serve society’s interests better.
A project manager believes that modifying the scope of the project may provide added value service for the customer. The project manager should A．assign change tasks to project members B．call a meeting of the configuration control board C．change the scope baseline D．postpone the modification until a separate enhancement project is funded after this project is completed according to the original baseline （）.
A:assign change tasks to project members B:call a meeting of the configuration control board C:change the scope baseline D:postpone the modification until a separate enhancement project is funded after this project is completed according to the original baseline
