—— This case is too heavy for me to carry upstairs.—— __________

A.A.In case

B.B.In the case

C.C.In this case

D.D.In that case

听力原文：W: Did you hear about Mr. William's case last week？

M: Yes. It's too terrible. As a matter of fact, he should not issue an open cheque in favor of a third party. Anyone who holds it would present it to the paying bank and obtain cash against it.

Q: What happened to Mr. Williams？

(16)

A．He lost a cheque and the thief cashed it.

B．He opened a cheque account.

C．A thief stole the money from the bank.

D．He cashed the cheque but the money was stolen by a thief.

high for the market we wish to supply. We also have to point out that the Men’s shirt are available in our market from several European manufacturers, all of which are at prices from 15% to 20% below yours. Such being the case, we have to ask you to consider if you can make reduction in your price, say 10%.

ederal government will do little to protect them or consumers from the software giant's monopoly power. But they hold out hope that state attorney generals could make the deal more restrictive. "My guess is that all Bill Gates could do was to suppress a big grin when he held his press conference this morning," said Mitchell Kertz-man, chief executive of Liberate Technologies, a rival provider of software for interactive TV. "This settlement does not come close to matching the scope of the violation of antitrust law that Microsoft has been convicted of," he added. "It was an inexplicably bad deal for the government."

Microsoft and the Justice Department presented the settlement to a federal judge Friday, saying that it would end the antitrust case in a way that would help the declining economy. US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed to review it and gave the 18 states involved in the case until Tuesday to decide whether to accept the plan.

Several competitors called on the state attorney generals to insist on making changes to the settlement. Sun Microsystems' general counsel, Michael Morris, said the Justice Department was "walking away from a case they had already won." Paul T. Cappuccio, the general counsel for AOL Time Warner, said the settlement "does too little to promote competition and protect consumers, and can too easily be evaded by a determined monopolist like Microsoft."

The state attorney generals had been pressing for stiffer penalties, but on Friday several said progress had been made. Among the key elements of the settlement, Microsoft would have to:

--Help rivals make products compatible with the Windows operating system, which runs 91 percent of the world's computers.

--Stop using exclusive deals with computer sellers to put competitors at a disadvantage.

--Let three in-house independent experts monitor its compliance.

"We are quite disappointed. We believe there are a lot of issues that have not been addressed," said Michald Mace, chief officer of handheld computer maker Palm, which makes an operating system that competes with one from Microsoft. Several tech executives said the settlement was too focused on restricting Microsoft's Widows monopoly, and not its broader business practices and non-PC initiatives.

"This is a reward, not a remedy. It fails to terminate the illegal monopoly and fails to free the market from anti-competitive conduct," said Kelly Jo Macarthur, general counsel for Real Networks, which makes music and video software, threatened by Windows Media Player. "This agreement allows a declared illegal monopolist to determine, at its sole discretion, what goes into the monopoly operating system in the future," she added.

We can infer from the text that the main issue behind Microsoft's antitrust case is the need ______.

A．to restrict the expansion of software companies

B．to limit the reach of Microsoft's Windows operating system

C．to prevent Microsoft from monopolizing the computer software industry

D．to assist its competitors in making products compatible with Windows

luring case near a primary school. It happened on Tuesday afternoon, during the lunch hour. Mary, a student of John Lake School was approached by two men in a black van. She refused and ran away. When she arrived at school, she reported it to the school staff. The schools and the police took it seriously. The schools wrote a letter to parents immediately, informing them of the case and making safety suggestions. Police are looking into the matter. Police responded to the case as soon as they received the report. "It's a matter of public safety," said the police spokesperson. "We want to make sure everybody, including kids, adults and people out and about are safe.So, we take this very seriously." Police were making some safety suggestions for the students. Police asked students to always be on their guard when walking to school.Kids were encouraged to walk in pairs and walk in the daylight where it's well lit. One of the police officer said, "… Students should try to walk where there are people around, and always let somebody, your family or friends, know where you are going."

1. The two men in the black van ().

A. knew Mary

B. was the school staff

C. probably wanted to lure Mary

2. Mary is probably a() school student.

A. kindergarten(幼儿园)

B. primary

C. middle

3.() too the case seriously.

A. The schools

B. The police

C. Both of the above

4. In order to be safe when going to school, kids should()

A. go to school on their own

B. take self-defense sprayers(自卫喷雾器)

C. not tell anyone where they’re going

5. This case indicated that() should pay attention to the safety problems.

A. the public

B. the parents

C. only school kids

Case 1 When Zhang Tao traveled in America , he lived in the home of his American friend , Bill. Once after he had traveled back ,

he found Bill was in a bad mood. When he asked what the problem was , Bill told Zhang Tao that his son Adam got furious about the noise Zhang made when walking upstairs and also because he was using too much water in the solar powered shower and Adam had to have his shower in cold water. Bill told Zhang Tao that he should walk more softly in future , and have a fast shower to save water. Zhang Tao felt uneasy.

How could the host set such rules for his guest？!

Question:

Why did Zhang Tao feel uneasy？

C is sometimes referred to as a 'high -level(66)language'. Some people think that's an insult, but it's actually a deliberate and significant aspect of the language. If you have(67)in assembly language, youll probably find C very natural and comfortable(although if you continue to focus too heavily on machine - level details, youll probably end up with unnecessarily non- portable programs). If you havent programmed in assembly language, you may be frustrated by C 's lack of certain higher - level features. In either case, you should understand why C was de- signed this way: so that seemingly - simple constructions expressed in C would not expand to arbitrarily expensive(in time or(68))machine language constructions when(69). If you write a C program simply and succinctly, it is likely to result in a succinct, efficient machine language executable. If you find that the(70)resulting from a C program is not efficient, it's probably because of something silly you did, not because of something the compiler did behind your back which you have no control over. In any case, there's no point in complaining about C's low - level flavor: C is what it is.

A．assembly

B．combination

C．grouping

D．compounding

lic opinion tended to protect that company. But perhaps this phenomenon was most striking in the case of the railroads. Nearly half of all negligence cases decided through 1896 involved railroads. And the railroads usually won.

Most of the cases were decided in state courts, when the railroads had the climate of the times on their sides. Government supported the railroad industry; the progress railroads represented was not to be slowed down by requiring them often to pay damages to those unlucky enough to be hurt working for them.

Court decisions always went against railroad workers. A Mr. Farwell, an engineer, lost his right hand when a switchman's negligence ran his engine off the track. The court reasoned that since Farwell had taken the job of an engineer voluntarily at good pay, he had accepted the risk. Therefore the accident, though avoidable had the switchman acted carefully, was a "pure accident". In effect a railroad could never be held responsible for injury to one employee caused by the mistake of another.

In one case where a Pennsylvania Railroad worker had started a fire at a warehouse and the fire had spread several blocks, causing widespread damage, a jury found the company responsible for all the damage. But the court overturned the jury's decision because it argued that the railroad's negligence was the immediate cause of damage only to the nearest buildings. Beyond them the connection was too remote to consider.

As the century wore on, public sentiment began to turn against the railroads— against their economic and political power and high fares as well as against their callousness toward individuals.

Which of the following is NOT true in Farwell's case？

A．Farwell was injured because he negligently ran his engine off the track.

B．Farwell would not have been injured if the switchman had been more careful.

C．The court argued that the victim had accepted the risk since he had willingly taken his job.

D．The court decided that the railroad should not be held responsible.

Dear Sirs,

The order mentioned above was delivered to our warehouse 2 days after it arrived in Chicago 8th Jan. and we regret that we have to complain about the conditions in which we received it.

In our order we stipulated that we required four dozen of your men's suits pattern CS/7, and in your invoice, No. CP/78, you charged us for this quantity, but it is clear that you have packed only three dozen in Case 3, 【B1】______ . We would therefore appreciate an explanation and your prompt action to send us the missing dozen suits.

Very much more serious is the condition of the ladies' trousers suits that you packed in Case 2. Of the six dozen that this case contains, 【B2】______ . It is quite clear that this is solely due to the totally inadequate way in which they had been packed for you had not lined the case with any waterproof paper. 【B3】______

【B4】______ , whereas in our order we had stated that we required your pattern CS/9 which is stated in your catalogue as being made up from heavy-weight material. There is no market here for tropical suits, and so we must emphasize 【B5】______ .

We must stress that the mistakes that you have made in this first order we have placed with you have caused considerable problems for us. We had hoped to include your products in the Spring Sale that is due to open at the end of February, but as it is, it is now clear that we shall not be able to do so. We wish to stress, therefore, that unless you take immediate action to correct the mistakes that you have made, 【B6】______ .

We now expect your prompt reply.

Yours,

Faithfully

A. please correct all the mistakes as soon as possible

B. that we expect you to replace these suits that have been wrongly delivered with those we ordered without delay

C. we shall certainly not consider further orders with you and shall report your company to the American Trade Promotion Office in New York

D. and we think the price is a little bit too high

E. forty have become very sodden in transit and most of these show signs of rotting

F. we are also surprised that you appear to have sent us three dozen lightweight gentlemen's suits in Case 1

G. we therefore expect your prompt action to remedy this situation

H. and there is no sign of the missing dozen in either Case 1 or 2

【B1】______

er's duty to give instant obedience to orders given by his military superiors？ And apart from duty, will not the soldier suffer severe punishment, even death, if he refuses to do what he is ordered to？ If, then, a soldier is told by his superior to burn this house or to shoot that prisoner, how can he be held criminally accountable on the ground' that the burning or shooting was a violation of the laws of war？

These are some of the questions that are raised by the concept commonly called "superior orders", and its use as a defense in war crimes trials. It is an issue that must be as old as the laws of war themselves, and it emerged in legal guise over three centuries ago when, after the Stuart restoration in 1660, the commander of the guards at the trial and execution of Charles I was put on trial for treason and murder. The officer defended himself on the ground "that all I did was as a soldier, by the command of my superior officer whom I must obey or die," but the court gave him short shrift, saying that "When the command is traitorous, then the obedience to that command is also traitorous①."

Though not precisely articulated, the rule that is necessarily implied by this decision is that it is the soldier's duty to obey lawful orders, but that he may disobey—and indeed must, under some circum stances-unlawful orders. Such has been the law of the United States since the birth of the nation. In 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that superior orders would justify a subordinate's conduct only "if not to perform. a prohibited act," and there are many other early decisions to the same effect.

A strikingly illustrative case occurred in the wake of that conflict which most Englishmen have never heard (although their troops burned the White House) and which we call the War of 1812. Our country was baldly split by that war too and, at a time when the United States Navy was not especially popular in New England, the ship-in-the-line Independence was lying in Boston Harbor. A passer-by directed abusive language at a marine standing guard on the ship, and the marine, Bevans by name, ran his bayonet through the man. Charged with murder, Bevans produced evidence that the marines on the Independence had been ordered to bayonet anyone showing them disrespect. The case was tried before Justice Joseph Story, next to Marshall, the leading judicial figure of those years, who charged that any such order as Bevans had invoked "would be illegal and void," and, if given and put into practice, both the superior and the subordinate would be guilty of murder②. In consequence, Bevans was convicted.

The order allegedly given to Bevans was pretty drastic, and Boston Harbor was not a battlefield; per haps it was not too much to expect the marine to realize that literal compliance might lead to bad trouble. But it is only too easy to conceive of circumstances where the matter might not be at all clear. Does the sub ordinate obey at peril that the order may later be ruled illegal, or is protected unless he has a good reason to doubt its validity？

It can be inferred from the first paragraph that if a soldier obeys his superior's order to burn a house or to kill a prisoner, ______.

A．he is fight according to moral standards

B．he should not receive any punishment

C．he should certainly be liable for his action

D．he will be convicted according to the law of war