Joan: Why are you so late?Michael: （ ） I left them in the car.
A.I couldn’t find my car keys B.You know what happened? C.I didn’t catch the bus D.My car was out of order
My boss has always attended to the （）of important business himself.
A.transaction B.stimulation C.transition D.coercion
Some people find that certain foods（ ） their headaches.
A.introduce B.trigger C.summon D.create
The government will consider（ ）future actions against terrorist bombers.
A.taken B.of taking C.to take D.taking
Fingerprints, one of the great deciders of innocence or guilt in criminal charges, are now in the dock themselves. This is because of a growing number of claims from defendants that their prints have been ‘‘lifted’’ and planted at scenes of crimes. And these allegations are being taken seriously by lawyers, judges and policemen because it is possible to move a fingerprint from one spot and place it elsewhere.With one of the cornerstones of evidence now being placed in doubt a committee of criminal lawyers is carrying out an inquiry into fingerprinting. The investigation has been ordered by Justice, the prestigious legal organization, and a report is due early next year. Last night a spokesman for Justice said: “There are an increasing number of cases where people are claiming their prints have been transferred and put on incriminating objects. We are not aiming to establish if these allegations are true or not, but we are questioning current fingerprinting methods as part of a general investigation into scientific evidence. Some of Britain’s top criminal lawyers are worried about this increasing number of claims.”How can a fingerprint be transferred? A finger mark left on a greasy glass or some other smooth surface can be “lifted” with a strip of adhesive. It can then be deposited on another, perhaps incriminating object. Accusations about "planted prints" were first put up at an old Baileg IRA bomb trial nine years ago without success. Fingerprints at the scene of a crime used to be dusted down with fine powder, photographed for identification purposes, then the pictures and objects carrying the prints were produced in court.However, since 1973 a new method of taking prints has been generally used in Britain. Police experts now use a strip of adhesive tape to lift a print which is then produced in court as evidence. Before 1973 the object on which the prints were found a little dagger or a gun — used to be shown in court as well. This is no longer necessary. As a result criminals are claiming that their prints have been "lifted" and planted elsewhere. According to ex-chief Superintendent Squires, lifting a mark and transferring it to another object “requires great skill and trouble.” He added: “It's almost impossible but it can be done. It can usually be easily detected by someone like me. but there is a chance that even I may not be able to tell.”1.Fingerprints have traditionally been regarded as（ ）.2.The investigation into fingerprinting is （ ）.3.The passage suggests that （ ）.4.Since 1973,（ ）.
A.the only proof of a suspected criminal's innocence or guilt B.one of many proofs of a suspected criminal's innocence or guilt C.no proof of a suspected criminal's innocence or guilt D.a key proof of a suspected criminal's innocence or guilt
问题2：
A.to prove that policemen have been behaving dishonestly B.to establish the truth of the allegations C.part of a wider investigation D.to allay the fears of some top criminal lawyers
问题3：
A.some of the allegations against fingerprinting' are justified B.transferring fingerprints is too much trouble for most policemen C.transferring fingerprints is a very delicate operation D.it is likely that some policemen transfer fingerprints
问题4：
A.fingerprints at the scene of a crime have been dusted down with fine powder and photographed. B.it has been necessary to produce in court the objects on which the prints were found C.there have been successful claims against police fingerprinting methods in the United States and Great Britain. D.police fingerprinting methods have been simplified
The interstates the official name, still, is the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways--tore down the invisible walls around U.S. towns.President Eisenhower was in favor of building the interstates because he believed that, in a time of war, they would be helpful in moving troops and supplies. But their immediate effect was to make Americans feel that certain doors had been unlocked. With the interstates came an exhilarating sense of freedom: A person could drive anywhere—everywhere--easily and without paying tolls.Suddenly, horizons were unlimited. “Local” didn’t mean quite the same thing it used to. You didn’t have to stay put. Getting away was effortless.And then, later in the 20th century, the Internet came along and with it the promise of the erasure of all symbolic borders. If the interstate highways had allowed physical freedom, the Internet allowed a different kind of freedom, one unprecedented in human experience.It was no coincidence that it was initially referred to as the information superhighway: Seemingly overnight, the knowledge (and trivia and gossip) of the world was available to anyone with a keyboard and a modem; people who had never met and would never meet could communicate as if they were lifelong friends.