题目内容
On his fifty-fifth birthday the president decided to (1)_____ some prisoners of the (2)_____ age as a gesture of good will Not too many, but one, say, from each of the twenty of thirty (3)_____ prisons in the small state. They would have to be carefully selected (4)_____ not to give trouble once they were out. Men perhaps had been so (5)_____ in prison that they had ceased to have and real contact with the outside world. None of them was to be told a (6)_____ of his (7)_____ liberty. Mario was therefore (8)_____ when he was called to the Governor"s office one morning and told he was to be set (9)_____ next day. He had spent almost three quarters of. his life in (10)_____ working out a life sentence (11)_____ stabbing a policeman to death. He was a dull-witted man with no relations (12)_____ and no friends except his prison mates. The following morning was clear and bright. Mario (13)_____ no opportunity to say goodbye to (14)_____ but a guard (15)_____ him to the prison gates and wished him g6dspeed. Alone, he set off up the long white road leading to the town. The traffic, the incessant noise, the absence (16)_____ the secure prison walls terrified him. Presently he "sat down by the side of the road to think (17)_____. After he had thought for a long time, for his brain worked slowly, he (18)_____ a decision. He remained he was, waiting patiently until at last he saw a police car (19)_____ When it was near enough, he darted out into the road, obliging it to stop with a squeal of brakes. He had with him a little knife. When the young police officer got out of the car demanding (20)_____ what was wrong, Mario stabbed him very neatly just behind the right ear.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Some things are doomed to remain imperfect, the United Nations among them. De spite noble aspirations, the organization that more than any other embodies the collective will and wisdom of an imperfect world was created, in the words of one former secretary general, not to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell. Is it failing in that task Alarmed at the bitter dispute over the war in Iraq, and at growing threats—from the devastation of AIDS and the danger of failing states to the prospect of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction—that the UN"s founding powers hadn"t even had night mares about, last year Kofi Annan, the current secretary-general, asked a group of eminent folk to put on their thinking caps. Their report on how the UN might in future better contribute to international peace and security—mobilising its own and the world"s re sources to prevent crises where possible and to deal with them more resolutely and effectively where necessary—is due for delivery in two weeks" time. Yet the thoughtful debate such proposals deserve risks getting lost in the poisonous war of words between UN-baiters and UN-boosters, and in the fisticuffs over what governments seem to care about most: who will get any extra seats that may be up for grabs on the Security Council. The might-is-always-righter brigade, who brush aside the UN as irrelevant in today"s world, are small in number but can seem troublingly influential. They are also dangerously shortsighted. Like other big powers, and plenty of smaller ones, America fosters the UN when it needs it, and sometimes circumvents it when it doesn"t. But wiser heads recognize that being the world"s most powerful country and top gun has its problems. With global interests and global reach, America is most often called on to right the world"s wrongs. It should have been interest in a rules-based system which keeps that burden to a minimum and finds ways for others, including the UN, to share it. What is more, as China, India, Japan and others put on economic and military muscle, having agreed rules for all to play by as much as possible makes strategic sense too. Yet the not-without-UN-approval school can be equally off the mark. For the system of international rules, treaties and laws is still a hodge-podge. Some, like the UN charter itself, are deemed universal, though they may at time be hotly disputed and sometimes ignored. Others, such as the prohibitions against proliferation of nuclear, chemical or bio logical weapons, are accepted by many, but not all. Some disputes can be settled in court—boundary disputes by the International Court of Justice, for example, accusations of war crimes or genocide by the International Criminal Court—but only where governments give the nod. For the rest, the UN Security Council is where most serious disputes end up. And there trouble can start. The council is not the moral conscience of the world. It is a collection of states pursuing divergent interests, albeit—one hopes—with a sense of responsibility. Where it can agree, consensus lends legitimacy to action. But should action always stop where consensus ends There was nothing high-minded about Russia"s refusal to countenance intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to end the Serb army"s ethnic cleansing there; it was simply protecting a friend. Might, concluded NATO governments in acting without council approval, is not always wrong. Over Iraq, it is debatable what did more damage: America"s failure to win support from the council before going to war anyway, or the hypocrisy that had allowed Iraq to flout all previous council resolutions with impunity. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that
Forget Iraq and budget deficits. The most serious political problem on both sides of the Atlantic is none of these. It is a difficulty that has dogged the ruling classes for millennia. It is the servant problem. In Britain David Blunkett, the home secretary, has resigned over an embarrassment (or one of many embarrassments, in a story involving his ex-girlfriend, her husband, two pregnancies and some DNA) concerning a visa for a Filipina nanny employed by his mistress. His office speeded it through for reasons unconnected to the national shortage of unskilled labour. Mr. Blunkett resigned ahead of a report by Sir Alan Budd, an economist who is investigating the matter at the government"s request. In America Bernard Kerik, the president"s nominee for the Department of Homeland Security, withdrew last week because he had carelessly employed a Mexican nanny whose Play-Doh skills were in better order than her paperwork. Mr. Kerik also remembered that he hadn"t paid her taxes. The nominee has one or two other "issues" (an arrest warrant in 1998, and allegations of dodgy business dealings and extra-marital affairs). But employing an illegal nanny would probably have been enough to undo him, as it has several other cabinet and judicial appointees in recent years. There is an easy answer to the servant problem—obvious to economists, if not to the less clear-sighted. Perhaps Sir Alan, a dismal scientist of impeccable rationality, will be thoughtful enough to point it out in his report. Parents are not the only people who have difficulty getting visas for workers. All employers face restrictive immigration policies which raise labour costs. Some may respond by trying to fiddle the immigration system, but most deal with the matter by exporting jobs. In the age of the global economy, the solution to the servant problem is simple: rather than importing the nanny, offshore the children. In paragraph 1, "both sides of the Atlanti" probably refers to
Some things are doomed to remain imperfect, the United Nations among them. De spite noble aspirations, the organization that more than any other embodies the collective will and wisdom of an imperfect world was created, in the words of one former secretary general, not to take humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell. Is it failing in that task Alarmed at the bitter dispute over the war in Iraq, and at growing threats—from the devastation of AIDS and the danger of failing states to the prospect of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction—that the UN"s founding powers hadn"t even had night mares about, last year Kofi Annan, the current secretary-general, asked a group of eminent folk to put on their thinking caps. Their report on how the UN might in future better contribute to international peace and security—mobilising its own and the world"s re sources to prevent crises where possible and to deal with them more resolutely and effectively where necessary—is due for delivery in two weeks" time. Yet the thoughtful debate such proposals deserve risks getting lost in the poisonous war of words between UN-baiters and UN-boosters, and in the fisticuffs over what governments seem to care about most: who will get any extra seats that may be up for grabs on the Security Council. The might-is-always-righter brigade, who brush aside the UN as irrelevant in today"s world, are small in number but can seem troublingly influential. They are also dangerously shortsighted. Like other big powers, and plenty of smaller ones, America fosters the UN when it needs it, and sometimes circumvents it when it doesn"t. But wiser heads recognize that being the world"s most powerful country and top gun has its problems. With global interests and global reach, America is most often called on to right the world"s wrongs. It should have been interest in a rules-based system which keeps that burden to a minimum and finds ways for others, including the UN, to share it. What is more, as China, India, Japan and others put on economic and military muscle, having agreed rules for all to play by as much as possible makes strategic sense too. Yet the not-without-UN-approval school can be equally off the mark. For the system of international rules, treaties and laws is still a hodge-podge. Some, like the UN charter itself, are deemed universal, though they may at time be hotly disputed and sometimes ignored. Others, such as the prohibitions against proliferation of nuclear, chemical or bio logical weapons, are accepted by many, but not all. Some disputes can be settled in court—boundary disputes by the International Court of Justice, for example, accusations of war crimes or genocide by the International Criminal Court—but only where governments give the nod. For the rest, the UN Security Council is where most serious disputes end up. And there trouble can start. The council is not the moral conscience of the world. It is a collection of states pursuing divergent interests, albeit—one hopes—with a sense of responsibility. Where it can agree, consensus lends legitimacy to action. But should action always stop where consensus ends There was nothing high-minded about Russia"s refusal to countenance intervention in Kosovo in 1999 to end the Serb army"s ethnic cleansing there; it was simply protecting a friend. Might, concluded NATO governments in acting without council approval, is not always wrong. Over Iraq, it is debatable what did more damage: America"s failure to win support from the council before going to war anyway, or the hypocrisy that had allowed Iraq to flout all previous council resolutions with impunity. The phrase "put on their thinking caps" (Line 5, Paragraph 2) most probably means
既可用于浸泡，又可用于熏蒸的化学消毒灭菌剂是（ ）。【历年考试真题】
微信支付 
支付宝支付