Slavery was （　） in Canada in 1833, and Canadian authorities encouraged the slaves, who escaped from America, to settle on its vast virgin land.

A:diluted B:dissipated C:abolished D:resigned

A factory that makes uranium fuel for nuclear reactors had a spill so bad it kept the plant closed for seven months last year and became one of only three events in all of 2006 serious enough for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in an annual report to Congress. After an investigation, the commission changed the terms of the factory’s license and said the public had 20 days to request a hearing on the changes.
But no member of the public ever did. In fact, no member of the public could find out about the changes. The document describing them, including the notice of hearing rights for anyone who felt adversely affected, was stamped "official use only," meaning that it was not publicly accessible.
The agency would not even have told Congress which factory was involved were it not for the efforts of Gregory B. Jaczko, one of the five commissioners. Mr. Jaczko identified the company, Nuclear Fuel Services of Erwin, Tenn,, in a memorandum that became part of the public record. His memorandum said other public documents would allow an informed person to deduce that the factory belonged to Nuclear Fuel Services.
Such secrecy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now coming under attack by influential members of Congress. These lawmakers argue that the agency is withholding numerous documents about nuclear facilities in the name of national security, but that many withheld documents are not sensitive. The lawmakers say the agency must rebalance its penchant for secrecy with the public’s right to participate in the licensing process and its right to know about potential hazards. The agency, the congressmen said, "has removed hundreds of in nocuous documents relating to the N. F. S. plant from public view."
With a resurgence of nuclear plant construction expected after a 30-year hiatus, agency officials say frequently that they are trying to strike a balance between winning public confidence by regulating openly and protecting sensitive information. A commission spokesman, Scott Burnell, said the "official use only" designation was under review.
As laid out by the commission’s report to Congress and other sources, the event at the Nuclear Fuel Service factory was discovered when a supervisor saw a yellow liquid dribbling under a door and into a hallway. Workers had previously described a yellow liquid in a "glove box," a sealed container with gloves built into the sides to allow a technician to manipulate objects inside, but managers had decided it was ordinary uranium. In fact, it was highly enriched uranium that had been declared surplus from the weapons inventory of the Energy Department and sent to the plant to be diluted to a strength appropriate for a civilian reactor. If the material had gone critical, "it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death," the commission said.
Generally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does describe nuclear incidents and changes in licenses. But in 2004, according to the committee’s letter, the Office of Naval Reactors, part of the Energy Department, reached an agreement with the commission that any correspondence with Nuclear Fuel Services would be marked "official use only./
Which of the following is true according to the text

A:The 2006 incidence occurred because of the carelessness of a supervisor. B:Yellow liquids in a glove box should always be handled with heed. C:Highly enriched uranium can be diluted for civilian uses. D:At least one worker has been seriously affected in the 2006 incidence.

Text 4
"It is always better to buy a house; paying rent is like pouring money down the drain." For years, such advice has encouraged people to borrow heavily to get on the property ladder as soon as possible. But is it still sound advice House prices are currently at record levels in relation to rents in many parts of the world and it now often makes more financial sense--especially for first--time buyers--to rent instead.
Homebuyers tend to underestimate their costs. Once maintenance costs, insurance and property taxes are added to mortgage payments, total annual outgoings now easily exceed the cost of renting an equivalent property, even after taking account of tax breaks. Ah, but capital gains will more than make up for that, it is popularly argued. Over the past seven years, average house prices in America have risen by 65% , those in Britain, Spain, Australia and Ireland have more than doubled. But it is unrealistic to expect such gains to continue. Making the (optimistic) assumption that house prices instead rise in line with inflation, and including buying and selling costs, then over a period of seven years--the average time American owners stay in one house--our calculations show that you would generally be better off renting.
Be warned, if you make such a bold claim at a dinner party, you will immediately be set upon. Paying rent is throwing money away, it will be argued. Much better to spend the money on a mortgage, and by so doing build up equity. The snag is that the typical first-time buyer keeps a house for less than five years, and during that time most mortgage payments go on interest, not on repaying the loan. And if prices fall, it could wipe out your equity. In any case, a renter can accumulate wealth by putting the money saved each year from the lower cost of renting into shares. There have, historically, yielded a higher return than housing. Putting all your money into a house also breaks the basic rule of prudent investing: diversify. And yes, it is true that a mortgage leverages the gains on your initial deposit on a house, but it also amplifies your losses if house prices fall.
"I want to have a place to call home," is a popular retort. Renting provides less long-term security and you cannot paint all the walls orange if you want to. Home owner ship is an excellent personal goal, but it may not always make financial sense. The pride of "owning" your own home may quickly fade if you are saddled with a mortgage that costs much more than renting. Also, renting does have some advantages. Renters find it easier to move for job or family reasons.
"If I don’t buy now, I’ll never get on the property ladder" is a common cry from first-time buyers. If house prices continue to outpace wages, that is true. But it now looks unlikely. When prices get out of line with what first-timers can afford, as they are today, they always eventually fall in real terms. The myth that buying is always better than renting grew out of the high inflation era of the 1970s and 1980s. First-time buyers then al ways ended up better off than renters, because inflation eroded the real value of mortgages even while it pushed up rents. Mortgage-interest tax relief was also worth more when inflation, and hence nominal interest rates, was high. With inflation now tamed, home owner ship is far less attractive.
The divergence between rents and house prices is, of course, evidence of a housing bubble. Someday prices will fall relative to rents and wages. After they do, it will make sense to buy a home. Until they do, the smart money is on renting.

The phrase "set upon" (Line 1 , Paragraph 3) most probably means（）

A:fixed. B:awarded. C:attacked. D:diluted.

A factory that makes uranium fuel for nuclear reactors had a spill so bad it kept the plant closed for seven months last year and became one of only three events in all of 2006 serious enough for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in an annual report to Congress. After an investigation, the commission changed the terms of the factory’s license and said the public had 20 days to request a hearing on the changes.
But no member of the public ever did. In fact, no member of the public could find out about the changes. The document describing them, including the notice of hearing rights for anyone who felt adversely affected, was stamped "official use only," meaning that it was not publicly accessible.
The agency would not even have told Congress which factory was involved were it not for the efforts of Gregory B. Jaczko, one of the five commissioners. Mr. Jaczko identified the company, Nuclear Fuel Services of Erwin, Tenn., in a memorandum that became part of the public record. His memorandum said other public documents would allow an informed person to deduce that the factory belonged to Nuclear Fuel Services.
Such secrecy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now coming under attack by influential members of Congress. These lawmakers argue that the agency is withholding numerous documents about nuclear facilities in the name of national security, but that many with-held documents are not sensitive. The lawmakers say the agency must rebalance its penchant for secrecy with the public’s right to participate in the licensing process and its right to know about potential hazards. The agency, the congressmen said, "has removed hundreds of innocuous documents relating to the N.F.S. plant from public view."
With a resurgence of nuclear plant construction expected after a 30-year hiatus, agency officials say frequently that they are trying to strike a balance between winning public confidence by regulating openly and protecting sensitive information. A commission spokesman, Scott Burnell, said the "official use only" designation was under review.
As laid out by the commission’s report to Congress and other sources, the event at the Nuclear Fuel Service factory was discovered when a supervisor saw a yellow liquid dribbling under a door and into a hallway. Workers had previously described a yellow liquid in a "glove box," a sealed container with gloves built into the sides to allow a technician to manipulate objects inside, but managers had decided it was ordinary uranium. In fact, it was highly enriched uranium that had been declared surplus from the weapons inventory of the Energy Department and sent to the plant to be diluted to a strength appropriate for a civilian reactor. If the material had gone critical, "it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death," the commission said.
Generally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does describe nuclear incidents and changes in licenses. But in 2004, according to the committee’s letter, the Office of Naval Reators, part of the Energy Department, reached an agreement with the commission that any correspondence with Nuclear Fuel Services would be marked "official use only./
Which of the following is true according to the text

A:The 2006 incidence occurred because of the carelessness of a supervisor. B:Yellow liquids in a glove box should always be handled with heed. C:Highly enriched uranium can be diluted for civilian uses. D:At least one worker has been seriously affected in the 2006 incidence.

A factory that makes uranium fuel for nuclear reactors had a spill so bad it kept the plant closed for seven months last year and became one of only three events in all of 2006 serious enough for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in an annual report to Congress. After an investigation, the commission changed the terms of the factory’s license and said the public had 20 days to request a hearing on the changes.
But no member of the public ever did. In fact, no member of the public could find out about the changes. The document describing them, including the notice of hearing rights for anyone who felt adversely affected, was stamped "official use only," meaning that it was not publicly accessible.
The agency would not even have told Congress which factory was involved were it not for the efforts of Gregory B. Jaczko, one of the five commissioners. Mr. Jaczko identified the company, Nuclear Fuel Services of Erwin, Tenn. , in a memorandum that became part of the public record. His memorandum said other public documents would allow an informed person to deduce that the factory belonged to Nuclear Fuel Services.
Such secrecy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now coming under attack by influential members of Congress. These lawmakers argue that the agency is withholding numerous documents about nuclear facilities in the name of national security, but that many withheld documents are not sensitive. The lawmakers say the agency must rebalance its penchant for secrecy with the public’s right to participate in the licensing process and its right to know about potential hazards. The agency, the congressmen said, " has removed hundreds of innocuous documents relating to the N. F. S. plant from public view. "
With a resurgence of nuclear plant construction expected after a 30-year hiatus, agency officials say frequently that they are trying to strike a balance between winning public confidence by regulating openly and protecting sensitive information. A commission spokesman, Scott Burnell, said the "official use only" designation was under review.
As laid out by the commission’s report to Congress and other sources, the event at the Nuclear Fuel Service factory was discovered when a supervisor saw a yellow liquid dribbling under a door and into a hallway. Workers had previously described a yellow liquid in a "glove box," a sealed container with gloves built into the sides to allow a technician to manipulate objects inside, but managers had decided it was ordinary uranium. In fact, it was highly enriched uranium that had been declared surplus from the weapons inventory of the Energy Department and sent to the plant to be diluted to a strength appropriate for a civilian reactor. If the material had gone critical, "it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death," the commission said.
Generally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does describe nuclear incidents and changes in licenses. But in 2004, according to the committee’s letter, the Office of Naval Reactors, part of the Energy Department, reached an agreement with the commission that any correspondence with Nuclear Fuel Services would be marked "official use only. /
Which of the following is true according to the text

A:The 2006 incidence occurred because of the carelessness of a supervisor. B:Yellow liquids in a glove box should always be handled with heed. C:Highly enriched uranium can be diluted for civilian uses. D:At least one worker has been seriously affected in the 2006 incidence.

Part A
Directions:
Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.
Text 1

Which of the following is true according to the text

A:The 2006 incidence occurred because of the carelessness of a supervisor. B:Yellow liquids in a glove box should always be handled with heed. C:Highly enriched uranium can be diluted for civilian uses. D:At least one worker has been seriously affected in the 2006 incidence.

Part A
Directions：
Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1.
Text 1

Which of the following is true according to the text

A:The 2006 incidence occurred because of the carelessness of a supervisor. B:Yellow liquids in a glove box should always be handled with heed. C:Highly enriched uranium can be diluted for civilian uses. D:At least one worker has been seriously affected in the 2006 incidence.

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 ISHEET 1. The human nose is an underrated tool. Humans are often thought to be insensitive smellers compared with animals, (1) this is largely because, (2) animals, we stand upright. This means that our noses are (3) to perceiving those smells which float through the air, (4) the majority of smells which stick to surfaces. In fact, (5) , we are extremely sensitive to smells, (6) we do not generally realize it. Our noses are capable of (7) human smells even when these are. (8) to far below one part in one million. Strangely, some people find that they can smell one type of flower but not another, (9) others are sensitive to the smells of both flowers. This may be because some people do not have the genes necessary to generate. (10) smell receptors in the nose. These receptors are the cells which sense smells and send (11) to the brain. However, it has been found that even people insensitive to a certain smell (12) can suddenly become sensitive to it when (13) to it often enough. The explanation for insensitivity to smell seems to be that brain finds it (14) to keep all smell receptors working all the time but can (15) new receptors if necessary. This may (16) explain why we are not usually sensitive to our own smells--we simply do not need to be. We are not (17) of the usual smell of our own house, but we (18) new smells when we visit someone else’s. The brain finds it best to keep smell receptors (19) for unfamiliar and emergency signals (20) the smell of smoke, which might indicate the danger of fire.

Read the following text. Choose the best word (s) for each numbered blank and mark A, B, C or D on ANSWER SHEET 1.8（　）

A:diluted B:dissolved C:dispersed D:diffused