A subtle distinction in the way women are singled outby the language is evident in the way

A.The most noticeable difference is the length.

B.Both a résumé and a CV are the brief written account of one’s personal details.

C.A more subtle but equally important distinction is the goal.

A．领航员，飞行员：steer a ship

B．赞助：provide aid

C．精练的，简洁的：brief

D．细微的差异：subtle distinction

A．合适的，恰当的：convenient

B．多疑的，对他人极端恐惧和怀疑的：extreme fear of distrust

C．细微的差异：subtle distinction

D．不说话的，缄默的：refraining from speech

I am not sure that I can draw an exact line between wit and humor (perhaps the distinction is so subtle that only those persons can decide who have long white beards), but even an ignorant person may ex- press an opinion in this matter.

I am quite positive that humor is the more comfortable and livable quality, for humorous persons, if their gift is genuine and not a mere shine upon the surface, are always agreeable companions. They have pleasant mouths turned up at the corners, to which the great Master of Marionettes has fixed the strings and he holds them in his nimblest fingers to twitch them at the slightest jest. But the mouth of a merely witty man is hard and sour. Nor is the flash from a witty man always comforting, but a humorous man radiates a general pleasure.

I admire wit, but I have no real liking for it; it has been too often employed against me, whereas humor is always an ally. It never points an impertinent linger into my defects. A wit's tongue, however, is as sharp as a donkey's stick—I may gallop the faster for its prodding, but the touch behind is too persuasive for any comfort.

Wit is a lean creature with a sharp inquiring nose, whereas humor has a kindly eye and a comfortable girth. Wit has a better voice in a solo, but humor comes into the chorus best. Wit keeps the season's fashions and is precise in the phrases and judgments of the day, but humor is concerned with homely eternal things.

The distinction between wit and humor is______.

A．of no particular importance

B．solely a matter of opinion

C．subtle

D．exact and important

e, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be.

Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment The American Medical Association's policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die --if one is permissible, then so is the other.

Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched".

Is my argument really irrelevant？ I don' t see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if' it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.

But traditionalists like professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia--the direct killing of patients--is not morally permissible; so, if thy argument is sound, their view must ,be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched".

However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.

The author's purpose in writing this passage is______

A．to air his opinions on Sullivan's fallacies.

B．to attack the traditional view on euthanasia.

C．to explain why his argument is relevant.

D．to draw a line between killing and letting die.

e, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be.

Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment. The American Medical Association's policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die—if one is permissible, then so is the other.

Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant. The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched".

Is my argument really irrelevant？ I don't see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.

But traditionalists like Professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia—the direct killing of patients—is not morally permissible; so, if my argument is sound, their view must be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched".

However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.

The author's purpose in writing this passage is

A．to air his opinions on Sullivan's arguments.

B．to attack the traditional view on euthanasia.

C．to explain how his argument is much relevant.

D．to draw a line between killing and letting die.

e, even with subtle rites and consent of the party involved is barbaric. No one can justly kill another human being. Just as it is wrong for a serial killer to murder, it is wrong for a physician to do so as well, no matter what the motive for doing so may be.

Many thinkers, including almost all orthodox Catholics, believe that euthanasia is immoral. They oppose killing patients in any circumstances whatever. However, they think it is all right, in some special circumstances, to allow patients to die by withholding treatment. The American Medical Association's policy statement on mercy killing supports this traditional view. In my paper "Active and Passive Euthanasia" I argue, against the traditional view, that there is in fact no normal difference between killing and letting die—if one is permissible, then so is the other.

Professor Sullivan does not dispute my argument; instead he dismisses it as irrelevant. The traditional doctrine, he says, does not appeal to or depend on the distinction between killing and letting die. Therefore, arguments against that distinction "leave the traditional position untouched".

Is my argument really irrelevant？ I don't see how it can be. As Sullivan himself points out, nearly everyone holds that it is sometimes meaningless to prolong the process of dying and that in those cases it is morally permissible to let a patient die even though a few more hours or days could be saved by procedures that would also increase the agonies of the dying. But if it is impossible to defend a general distinction between letting people die and acting to terminate their lives directly, then it would seem that active euthanasia also may be morally permissible.

But traditionalists like Professor Sullivan hold that active euthanasia—the direct killing of patients—is not morally permissible; so, if my argument is sound, their view must be mistaken. I can not agree, then, that my argument "leave the traditional position untouched".

However, I shall not press this point. Instead I shall present some further arguments against the traditional position, concentrating on those elements of the position which professor Sullivan himself thinks most important. According to him, what is important is, first, that we should never intentionally terminate the life of a patient, either by action or omission, and second, that we may cease or omit treatment of a patient, knowing that this will result in death, only if the means of treatment involved are extraordinary.

The author's purpose in writing this passage is ______.

A．to air his opinions on Sullivan's arguments.

B．to attack the traditional view on euthanasia.

C．to explain how his argument is much relevant.

D．to draw a line between killing and letting die.

A.微波炉

B.精致的

C.麦克风