s="" allowance.="" “those="" first="" few="" days="" should="" be="" spent="" looking="" for="" work,="" not="" to="" sign="" on,”="" he="" claimed.="" “we’re="" doing="" these="" things="" because="" we="" know="" they="" help="" people="" stay="" off="" benefits="" and="" those="" on="" get="" into="" work="" faster.”="" help?="" really?="" hearing,="" this="" was="" the="" socially="" concerned="" chancellor,="" trying="" change="" lives="" better,="" complete="" with="" “reforms”="" an="" obviously="" indulgent="" system="" that="" demands="" too="" little="" effort="" from="" newly="" unemployed="" find="" subsidises="" laziness.="" what="" motivated="" him,="" were="" understand,="" his="" zeal="" “fundamental="" fairness”—protecting="" taxpayer,="" controlling="" spending="" ensuring="" only="" most="" deserving="" claimants="" received="" their="" benefits.Losing a job is hurting: you don't skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are now not wanted; you are now excluded from the work environment that offers purpose and structure in your life. Worse, the crucial income to feed yourself and your family and pay the bills has disappeared. Ask anyone newly unemployed what they want and the answer is always: a job.But in Osbomeland, your first instinct is to fall into dependency—permanent dependency if you can get it—supported by a state only too ready to indulge your falsehood. It is as though 20 years of ever tougher reforms of the job search and benefit administration system never happened. The principle of British welfare is no longer that you can insure yourself against the risk of unemployment and receive unconditional payments if the disaster happens. Even the very phrase “jobseeker's allowance” is about redefining the unemployed as a “jobseeker” who had no fundamental right to a benefit he or she has earned through making national insurance contributions. Instead, the claimant receives a time-limited “allowance,” conditional on actively seeking a job; no entitlement and no insurance, at $71.70 a week, one of the least generous in the EU.1.George Osborne's scheme was intended to（ ）.2.The phrase “to sign on”(Paragraph 2) most probably means （ ）.3.What prompted the chancellor to develop his scheme?4.According to Paragraph 3, being unemployed makes one feel （ ）.5.To which of the following would the author most probably agree?'>
In order to “change lives for the better” and reduce “dependency,” George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the “upfront work search” scheme. Only if the jobless arrive at the jobcentre with a CV, register for online job search, and start looking for work will they be eligible for benefit—and then they should report weekly rather than fortnightly. What could be more reasonable?More apparent reasonableness followed. There will now be a seven-day wait for the jobseeker's allowance. “Those first few days should be spent looking for work, not looking to sign on,” he claimed. “We’re doing these things because we know they help people stay off benefits and help those on benefits get into work faster.” Help? Really? On first hearing, this was the socially concerned chancellor, trying to change lives for the better, complete with “reforms” to an obviously indulgent system that demands too little effort from the newly unemployed to find work, and subsidises laziness. What motivated him, we were to understand, was his zeal for “fundamental fairness”—protecting the taxpayer, controlling spending and ensuring that only the most deserving claimants received their benefits.Losing a job is hurting: you don't skip down to the jobcentre with a song in your heart, delighted at the prospect of doubling your income from the generous state. It is financially terrifying, psychologically embarrassing and you know that support is minimal and extraordinarily hard to get. You are
Some people find that certain foods（ ） their headaches.
A.introduce B.trigger C.summon D.create
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
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
France's（ ） of nuclear testing in the South Pacific last month triggered politicaldebates and mass demonstrations.
A.assumption B.consumption C.presumption D.resumption
The government will consider（ ）future actions against terrorist bombers.
A.taken B.of taking C.to take D.taking