题目内容

李天志与妻子朱兰、女儿李梅(11周岁)一家三口住在贫困山村。为脱贫致富，1998年12月李天志分别向邻村人刘江、信用社和复员军人张海各借款1万元，分别写下1万元欠条3张，共计3万元，购买邻村一台旧卡车开始货运业务。1999年1月，在尚未办理各项车辆运输保险的情况下，李天志冒着雪天路滑的危险为村民刘江运货进城，不幸坠人山谷，车毁货损人亡。朱兰得知后，痛不欲生，当晚上吊自杀，留下孤儿李梅。村委会在全权处理李、朱丧事并清查其财产债务后，会同乡民政干部组织召开了一个特别会议，参加人有村委会和乡民政干部、邻村村长、信用社负责人、刘江、张海、李梅和李梅的堂叔李天容。会议形成了一个书面协议，内容是：①朱兰名下存款2000元清偿刘江的货损；②瓦房1间及农具、家庭生活用品约价值1万元，由张海负责处理，折抵其借款1万元；③丧葬费1000元由村委会承担；④欠信用社和邻村人的2万元由李梅在年满18周岁以后5年内还清，但不计利息；⑤李梅今后由其堂叔李天容抚养。参会人员分别签字盖章，李梅也签字同意并加按手印。但李天容虽同意抚养李梅，却提出自己家境过于贫困，难以保证李梅的学习和生活，建议在财产上有所照顾。请回答以下问题： (1)该协议涉及哪些方面的法律问题 (2)你认为本案依法应如何处理

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

简述共有的概念及其分类。

In 1942 Allan R Holmberg, a doctoral student in anthropology from Yale University, USA, ventured deep into the jungle of Bolivian Amazonia and searched out an isolated band of Siriono Indians. The researcher described the primitive society as a desperate straggle for survival, a view of Amazonia being fundamentally reconsidered today.41. _______The Siriono, Holmberg wrote, led a "strikingly backward" existence. Their villages were little more than clusters of thatched huts. Life itself was a perpetual and punishing search for food: some families grew manioc and other starchy crops in small garden plots cleared from the forest, while other members of the tribe scoured the country for small game and promising fish holes. When local resources became depleted, the tribe moved on. As for technology, Holmberg noted, the Siriono "may be classified among the most handicapped peoples of the world". Other than bows, arrows and crude digging sticks, the only tools the Siriono .seemed to possess were "two machetes worn to the size of pocket-knives".42. _Although the lives of the Siriono have changed in the intervening decades, the image of them as Stone Age relics has endured. To casual observers, as well as to influential natural scientists and regional planners, the luxuriant forests of Amazonia seem ageless, unconquerable, a habitat totally hostile to human civilization. The apparent simplicity of Indian ways of life has been judged an evolutionary adaptation to forest ecology, living proof that Amazonia could not—and cannot—sustain a more complex society. Archaeological traces of far more elaborate cultures have been dismissed as the ruins of invaders from outside the region, abandoned to decay in the uncompromising tropical environment.43. _The popular conception of Amazonia and its native residents would be enormously consequential if it were true. But the human history of Amazonia in the past 11,000 years betrays that view as myth. Evidence gathered in recent years from anthropology and archaeology indicates that the region has sup ported a series of indigenous cultures for eleven thousand years; an extensive network of complex societies—some with populations perhaps as large as 100,000—thrived there for more than 1,000 years before the arrival of Europeans. Far from being evolutionarily retarded, prehistoric Amazonian people developed technologies and cultures that were advanced for their time. If the lives of Indians today seem "primitive", the appearance is not the result of some environmental adaptation or ecological barrier; rather it is a comparatively recent adaptation to centuries of economic and political pressure.44. _The evidence for a revised view of Amazonia will take many people by surprise. Ecologists have assumed that tropical ecosystems were shaped entirely by natural forces and they have focused their re search on habitats they believe have escaped human influence. But as the University of Florida ecologist, Peter Feinsinger, has noted, an approach that leaves people out of the equation is no longer ten able. The archaeological evidence shows that the natural history of Amazonia is to a surprising extent tied to the activities of its prehistoric inhabitants.45. _________The realization comes none too soon. In June 1992 political and environmental leaders from across the world met in Rio de Janeiro to discuss how developing countries can advance their economies with out destroying their natural resources. The challenge is especially difficult in Amazonia. Because the tropical forest has been depicted as ecologically unfit for large-scale human occupation, some environ mentalists have opposed development of any kind. Ironically, one major casualty of that extreme position has been the environment itself. While policy makers struggle to define and implement appropriate legislation, development of the most destructive kind has continued apace over vast areas.The other major casualty of the "naturalism" of environmental scientists has been the indigenous Amazonians, whose habits of hunting, fishing, and slash-and-burn cultivation often have been represented as harmful to the habitat. In the clash between environmentalists and developers, the Indians have suffered the most. The new understanding of the pre-history of Amazonia, however, points to ward a middle ground. Archaeology makes clear that with judicious management selected parts of the region could support more people than anyone thought before. The long-buried past, it seems, offers hope for the future.[A] Assumed inhospitableness to .social development[B] Price paid for misconceptions[C] Evolutionary adaptation to forest ecology[D] False believes revised[E] Extreme impoverishment and backwardness[F] Ignorance of early human impact 43

To live in the United States today is to gain an appreciation for Dahrendorfs assertion that social change exists everywhere. Technology, the application of knowledge for practical ends, is a major source of social change.Yet we would do well to remind ourselves that technology is a human creation; it does not exist naturally. A spear or a robot is as much a cultural as a physical object. 46) Until humans use a spear to hunt game or a robot to produce machine parts, neither is much more than a solid mass of matter. For a bird looking for an object on which to rest, a spear or robot serves the purpose equally well. The explosion of the Challenger space shuttle and the Russian nuclear accident at Chernobyl drive home the human quality of technology: they provide cases in which well-planned systems suddenly got into a mess and there was no ready hand to set them right. Since technology is a human creation, we are responsible for what is done with it. Pessimists worry that we will use our technology eventually to blow our world and ourselves to pieces. But they have been saying this for decades, and so far we have man aged to survive and even flourish. Whether we will continue to do so in the years ahead remains uncertain. Clearly, the impact of technology on our lives deserves a closer examination.Few technological developments have had a greater impact on our lives than the computer revolution. Scientists and engineers have designed specialized machines that can do the tasks that once only people could do. 47) There are those who assert that the switch to an information-based economy is in the same camp as other great historical milestones, particularly the Industrial Revolution.Yet when we ask why the Industrial Revolution was a revolution, we find that it was not the machines. The primary reason why it was revolutionary is that it led to great social change. 48) It gave rise to mass production and, through mass production, to a society in which wealth was not confined to the few. 49) In somewhat similar fashion, computers promise to revolutionize the structure of American life, particularly as they free the human mind and open new possibilities in knowledge and communication.The Industrial Revolution supplemented and replaced the muscles of humans and replaced some aspects of the mind of human beings by electronic methods. 50) It is the capacity of the computer for solving problems and making decisions that represents its greatest potential and that poses the greatest difficulties in predicting the impact on society. It gave rise to mass production and, through mass production, to a society in which wealth was not confined to the few.

TEXT C The English language exists in a condition of everlasting danger, its American branch most particularly, assaulted as it is from all sides by those who would reduce it to puzzling and obscure jargon, pop-psychological nonsense and vague beautified words, but it is not without its defenders. Ken Smith, author of Junk English, is the leading figure. He begins with a brief and clear declaration: "Junk English is much more than loose and casual grammar. It is a signal of human weaknesses and cultural license: abandoning the language of the educated yet giving birth to its own serf-glorifying words and phrases, favoring appearance over substance, broadness over precision, and loudness above all. It is sometimes innocent, sometimes lazy, sometimes well intended, but most often it is a trick we play on ourselves to make the unremarkable seem important. Its scope has been widened by politicians, business executives, and the PR and advertising industries in their employ, who use it to spread fog before facts they would rather keep hidden. The result is…a world of humbug in which the more we read and hear, the less we know." Smith is, of course, saying something not true—it is difficult to imagine that Junk English will be noticed, much less read, by those who most could profit from it—but it is an instructive and entertaining instructions and explanation all the same. He tries his hands at all the right places—jargon, clichés, euphemisms and exaggeration—but he doesn’t swing blindly. "Although jargon often sounds ugly to outsiders, it speeds communication within the community that uses it" —and that "clichés, though popular objects of scorn, are useful when they most compactly express an idea; deliberate avoidance of an appropriate cliché sometimes produces even worse writing." In other words, Smith may be passionate but he’s also sensible. In a section about "free-for-all verbs," for example, he acknowledges that "There is no law against inventing one’s own verbs" before citing a few funny instances of what happens when "Things get a little out of hand," i.e. "We’re efforting to work this out" or "She tried to guilt him into returning the money." In the end, though, being sensible about language is in essence trying to insist that words mean what they properly mean and are used accordingly. Thus, for example, Smith insists that "dialogue" and "discussion" are not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably; that "complimentary" does not mean "free"; that "experience" does not mean "feel"; that "facilitate" does not mean "ease"; that "generate" does not mean "produce"; that "lifestyle" does not mean "life". Smith obviously has spent a lot of time making notes about the ways in which we ruin and abuse our language, with results that are impressive in their thoroughness and depressing in their going to far. Occasionally he overlooks the obvious—among euphemisms he mentions "customer care representative" but not "courtesy call," and among the previously mentioned palsy-walsy language he inexplicably overlooks "Your call is important to us" —but then, as he says at the outset, he intended to write a short book and as a result had to leave out many misdeeds. The ones he includes more than do the job. Which of the following best describes Junk English

A. Overblown.
B. Complicated.
C. Vulgar.
D. Unfashionable.