Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage.Early decision—you apply to one school, and admission is binding—seems like a great choice for nervous applicants Schools let in a higher percentage of early-decision applicants, which arguably means that you have a better chance of getting in. And if you do, you’re done with the whole agonizing process by December. But what most students and parents don’t realize is that schools have hidden motives for offering early decision.Early decision since it’s binding, allows schools to fill their classes with qualified students; it allows admissions committees to select the students that are in particular demand for their college and know those students will come. It also gives schools a higher yield rate which is often used as one of the ways to measure college selectivity and popularity.The problem is that this process effectively shortens the window of time students have to make one of the most important decisions of their lives up to that point. Under regular admissions, seniors have until May 1 to choose which school to attend; early decision effectively steals six months from them, months that could be used to visit more schools, do more research, speak to current students and alumni and arguably make a more informed decision.There are, frankly, an astonishing number of exceptional colleges in America, and for any given student, there are a number of schools that are a great fit. When students become too fixated on a particular school early in the admissions process, that fixation can lead to severe disappointment if they don’t get in or, if they do, the possibility that they are now bound to go to a school that, given time for further reflection, may not actually be right for them.Insofar as early decision offers a genuine admissions edge; that advantage goes largely to students who already have numerous advantages. The students who use early decision tend to be those who have received higher quality college guidance, usually a result of coming from a more privileged background. In this regard, there’s an argument against early decision, as students from lower-income families are far less likely to have the admissions know-how to navigate the often confusing early deadlines.Students who have done their research and are confident that there’s one school they would be thrilled to get into should, under the current system, probably apply under early decision. But for students who haven’t yet done enough research, or who are still constantly changing their minds on favorite schools, the early decision system needlessly and prematurely narrows the field of possibility just at a time when students should be opening themselves to a whole range of thrilling options.36. What are students obliged to do under early decision?

37. Why do schools offer early decision?

38. What is said to be the problem with early decision for students?

39. Why are some people opposed to early decisions?

40. What does the author advise college applicants to do?

A.Attend the school once they are admitted. B.Look into a lot of schools before they apply. C.Think twice before they accept the offer. D.Consult the current students and alumni.问题2： A.To provide more opportunities for applicants. B.To avoid competition with other college. C.To make sure they get qualified students. D.To save students the agony of choosing a school.问题3： A.It makes their application process more complicated. B.It places too high a demand on their research ability. C.It exerts much more psychological pressure on them. D.It allows them little time to make informed decisions.问题4： A.It interferes with students’ learning in high school. B.It is biased against students at ordinary high schools. C.It places students from lower income families at a disadvantage. D.It causes unnecessary confusion among college applicants.问题5： A.Refrain from competing with students from privileged families. B.Find sufficient information about their favorite schools. C.Avoid choosing early decision unless they are

In California, as in most death penalty jurisdictions, to sentence a defendant to death the fact-finder must make three determinations: (1) that the defendant committed a first-degree murder; (2) that the defendant meets the statutory criteria for death-eligibility; and (3) that, in light of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the defendant deserves the death penalty. In California, the first two determinations are made together at the guilt phase of the trial when the fact-finder decides whether the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder and whether any charged special circumstance is true. If the defendant is found guilty and a special circumstance is found true, the case proceeds to a penalty phase, where the fact-finder determines the defendant’s sentence. At the penalty phase, the fact-finder is directed to take into account a list of eleven factors, the first of which is “the circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true.” The fact-finder will impose the death penalty if the fact-finder concludes that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The list of factors does not consist of propositional questions but instead directs the sentencer to consider certain subjects, and the sentencer is not required to make findings as to any of the factors. Nor is the sentencer limited by the direction to weigh aggravation against mitigation; rather, “each juror is free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value he deems appropriate to each and all of the various factors he is permitted to consider” and to decide whether death is “the appropriate penalty under all the circumstances.”The breadth of death-eligibility under the California scheme is a product of the interplay between the definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances. At present, there are twenty-one categories of first-degree murder, divided into two groups: eight categories of malice-murder, and thirteen categories of felony-murder. There are thirty-three separately enumerated special circumstances that render a first-degree murderer death-eligible, including twelve felony-murder special circumstances. The California Supreme Court has held unconstitutional on vagueness grounds the “heinous, atrocious or cruel” special circumstance, but all of the remaining special circumstances call for a relatively narrow factual determination by the fact-finder, in contrast with the more open-ended eligibility factors used in other states. Thirty of the remaining thirty-two special circumstances — all but the “prior murder” circumstance, and, in rare cases, the multiple-murder circumstance — single out purportedly aggravating circumstances of the crime itself.

Steven F. Shatz, The Eighth Amendment, the Death Penalty and OrdinaryRobbery-Burglary Murderers: A California Case Study41. Who is the fact-finder?42. In the context of the paragraphs, who is the sentencer?43. “The breadth of death-eligibility under the California scheme is a product of the interplay between the definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances.” This sentence means ___.44. According to the last paragraph, how many of the felony-murder special circumstances is (are) not death-eligible?45. In California, the trial of a criminal case is divided into two stages: ___.

A.Judge B.Court C.Policeman D.Jury
问题2：
A.Judge B.Court C.Defense lawyer D.Juror
问题3：
A.The definition of first-degree murder and the definition of the special circumstances are provided for in California law. B.Whether or not a person can be sentenced with death penalty depends on how the sentencer explains first-degree murder and the special circumstances. C.Whether or not a person can be sentenced with death penalty depends on how the sentencer combines first-degree murder with the special circumstances. D.Whether or not a person can be sentenced with death penalty depends on how the sentencer fits the fact situation into t

IX. Forensic AppraisalAs a categorical matter, the science of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) can no longer support a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in triad-only (三联征) cases — cases which represent a significant number of SBS prosecutions. Put simply, here change has raised the real possibility of past error.In the past, the mere presence of retinal hemorrhaging, (视网膜出血) subdural hematoma (硬膜下血肿), and cerebral edema (脑水肿) was taken to mean that a baby had been shaken hard enough to produce what were conceptualized as whiplash forces. According to the conventional understanding of SBS, the application of rotational acceleration and deceleration forces to the infant’s head causes the brain to rotate in the skull. Abrupt deceleration allows continuing brain rotation until bridging veins are stretched and ruptured, causing a thin layer of subdural haemorrhage on the surface of the brain. Retinal hemorrhages were thought to result from a similar causal mechanism. Most significantly, the triad of symptoms was believed to be distinctly characteristic of violent shaking.Despite its lingering presence in the popular imagination, the scientific underpinnings of SBS have crumbled over the past decade as the medical establishment has deliberately discarded a diagnosis defined by shaking. Although no single nomenclature has emerged in its place, doctors are now in widespread agreement that SBS is an unhelpful characterization, and that the presence of retinal hemorrhages and subdural hematoma cannot conclusively prove that injury was inflicted.Although it may be tempting to conclude simply that science evolves, and leave the inquiry there, the story is more complex; an object lesson in scientific overreaching and the challenge of correction.A number of forces coalesced to transform SBS from a certain diagnosis into its current state of flux. Most importantly, in the mid- to late-1990s, medical research, including the SBS literature, became subject to a heightened level of scrutiny. The new evidence-based medicine standards required doctors to derive their research from methods that are scientific and statistically rigorous. The change triggered a review of the evidence supporting a number of areas of medicine, and included a comprehensive effort to examine the science underlying SBS.The application of the evidence-based framework to the SBS literature resulted in a remarkable determination: the medical literature published prior to 1998 contained inadequate scientific evidence to come to a firm conclusion on most aspects of causation, diagnosis, treatment, or any other matters pertaining to SBS.83. One learns from the paragraphs that SBS is ___.84. The presence of the following syndromes makes the doctors believe that a baby was shaken hard, except ___.85. According to the last paragraph, the following statement is NOT correct ___.86. One can foresee that after the recent research result based on evidence, ___.

A.a disease that can be caught by a baby B.a syndrome that courts use to charge a defendant for a baby’s death C.a syndrome that doctors look at to determine the cause of a baby’s death D.a new discovery
问题2：
A.the baby was less than one year old B.retinal hemorrhaging C.subdural hematoma D.cerebral edema
问题3：
A.the medical literature published prior to 1998 contained inadequate scientific evidence to come to a firm conclusion B.the previous conclusion on most aspects of causation, diagnosis, treatment, or any other matters pertaining to SBS was not correct C.the application of the evidence-based framework to the SBS literature resulted in a different result D.the medical literature published after 1998 contained adequate scientific evidence to come to a firm conclusion
问题4：
A.the prosecution of SBS defendant will no longer exist B.the past conviction of SBS will definitely be announced to be error C.there will probably be challenge to past conviction for correction D.doctors are going to abandon the term SBS

Plato had an essentially antagonistic view of art and the artist, although he approved of certain religious and moralistic kinds of art.

A.ethical B.responsive C.feasible D.hostile

The National Park System ______ areas of natural beauty for preservation and public employment.

A.sets aside B.saves up C.arranges for D.reserves for

There is no（ ）in applying for that job as you are not properly qualified.

A.reason B.point C.result D.chance