Il ne trouva personne avec qui （） __________.

(28)

A．Although I feel it is a long time, we actually met only eight days ago.

B．Although we've known each other for a short time, we've been friends for a long time.

C．I feel we haven't seen each other for a long time.

D．We met when we ate in a restaurant eight days ago.

W: I know. It's frightening, isn't it?

M: No, not a bit. I mean if we can produce fruit that doesn't rot, animals that eat less and produce more, what's so scary about that? W: OK. But you know those new microorganisms that they are producing. Well,you only need a laboratory accident and the effects would be far more disastrous than AIDS, for instance.

M: Why are you always so negative? )Soon I'll be able have a genetic screening done and they'll be able to tell me what diseases I'm likely to have.

W: OK. But what if they tell you you're going to have a disease for which there's currently no known cure?

M: If I know it's hereditary then I might think twice before having any children.

W: They can take a piece of someone's hair now and tell you all about that person's medical life. Now that could be an incredible invasion of someone's privacy.

M: How do you mean?

W: Look. So at your job interview they ask you for a piece of hair, ring you up ten days later or whatever and tell you they don't want to employ you because you've got such and such a disease and you might die in five years.

M: Don't be absurd.

W: I'm not being absurd.

M: Do you think people would let them get away with that, huh? What is all this? It sounds like you've been reading 1984. Why don't you look you on the practical side of things for a change?

What are the man and the woman talking about?

A．Genetic engineering.

B．Genetic screening.

C．Genetic food.

D．Eugenics.

A primary difference for a person with a disability who becomes a crime victim, however, is that the criminal victimization frequently compounds existing problems caused by a lack of accessibility to basic social services, poverty, institutionalization, and other barriers to equal rights. A crime that would be damaging to an able-bodied person is frequently a devastating blow to a person with a disability. Indeed, for many, it is the criminal assault itself that results in a disability; the ability to move, to communicate, to understand, is disrupted temporarily or permanently.

Many people with disabling conditions are especially vulnerable to victimization because of their real or perceived inability to fight or flee, or to notify others and testify about the victimization. Frequently, because a person with a disability may be more physically frail, the victimization may exacerbate existing health or mental health problems. For those who hope that their disability may "protect" them from criminal victimization, it is shocking to learn that many criminals do not act upon a perceived "desirability" of the intended victim. Indeed, many perpetrators may be unaware that their victims have a disability. Here, the victim is truly random, another one of us in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Another reality is that many offenders are motivated by a desire to obtain control over the victim and measure their potential prey for vulnerabilities. Many people with disabilities, because they are perceived as unable to physically defend themselves, or identify the attacker, or call for help, are perfect targets for such offenders. People with disabilities are also vulnerable to abuse by the very professionals and other caregivers who provide them with services. Just as many pedophiles gravitate to youth-serving occupations, so do many other predators seek work as caregivers to people with disabilities.

People who are victimized are, therefore, vulnerable to exacerbated suffering. Most victims will experience a sense of shock, disbelief, or denial that the crime occurred, often followed by cataclysmic emotions: fear, anger, confusion, guilt, humiliation and grief, among others. But people with disabilities may have intensified reactions because they may already feel stigmatized and often have low self-esteem due to societal attitudes. The sense of self-blame, confusion, vulnerability, and loss of trust may be exaggerated, as may be an ambivalence or negativity related to their perception of their bodies. Denial and avoidance of the need to cope with the aftermath may complicate the identification of crime victims with a disability. Some victims, particularly elderly and those with developmental disabilities, will need services designed to enhance a feeling of safety and security regarding future victimization.

People with disabilities, even before they are victimized, have such problems as

A．a lack of basic social services.

B．impoverishment.

C．institutionalization.

D．barriers to equal rights.

Required:

(a) Explain what is meant by the terms:

(i) ‘person specification’; (4 marks)

A primary difference for a person with a disability who becomes a crime victim, however, is that the criminal victimization frequently compounds existing problems caused by a lack of accessibility to basic social services, poverty, institutionalization, and other barriers to equal rights. A crime that would be damaging to an able-bodied person is frequently a devastating blow to a person with a disability. Indeed, for many, it is the criminal assault itself that results in a disability; the ability to move, to communicate, to understand, is disrupted temporarily or permanently.

Many people with disabling conditions are especially vulnerable to victimization because of their real or perceived inability to fight or flee, or to notify others and testify about the victimization. Frequently, because a person with a disability may be more physically frail, the victimization may exacerbate existing health or mental health problems. For those who hope that their disability may "protect" them from criminal victimization, it is shocking to learn that many criminals do not act upon a perceived "desirability" of the intended victim. Indeed, many perpetrators may be unaware that their victims have a disability. Here, the victim is truly random, another one of us in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Another reality is that many offenders are motivated by a desire to obtain control over the victim and measure their potential prey for vulnerabilities. Many people with disabilities, because they are perceived as unable to physically defend themselves, or identify the attacker, or call for help, are perfect targets for such offenders. People with disabilities are also vulnerable to abuse by the very professionals and other caregivers who provide them with services. Just as many pedophiles gravitate to youth-serving occupations, so do many other predators seek work as caregivers to people with disabilities.

People who are victimized are, therefore, vulnerable to exacerbated suffering. Most victims will experience a sense of shock, disbelief, or denial that the crime occurred, often followed by cataclysmic emotions: fear, anger, confusion, guilt, humiliation and grief, among others. But people with disabilities may have intensified reactions because they may already feel stigmatized and often have low self-esteem due to societal attitudes. The sense of self-blame, confusion, vulnerability, and loss of trust may be exaggerated, as may be an ambivalence or negativity related to their perception of their bodies. Denial and avoidance of the need to cope with the aftermath may complicate the identification of crime victims with a disability. Some victims, particularly elderly and those with developmental disabilities, will need services designed to enhance a feeling of safety and security regarding future victimization.

People with disabilities, even before they are victimized, have such problems as______.

A．a lack of basic social services

B．impoverishment

C．institutionalization

D．barriers to equal rights

Here comes John Smith walking toward me. Even though he is but a passing acquaintance, the American greeting ritual demands that I utter a few words to reassure him of my good will. But what form. of ad- dress should I use? John? Smith? Dr. Smith? A decision such as this is usually made unconsciously.

As native speakers in the American speech community, we have grown up learning the rules of address at the same time that we were acquiring the grammatical rules of American - English. At first thought, it might seem a trivial pursuit to examine the ways in which we address one another. But forms of address re- veal many assumptions we make about memebers of our speech community.

Our initial decision about the appropriate address form. is based on relative ages. If the person being ad- dressed is a child, then almost all the rules that we have unconsciously assimilated can safely be ignored, and we use the simple formula First Name. The child, in turn, addresses an adult by using the formula Tihe plus Last Name.

But defining a "child" is not always easy. I address my son's roommate at college by FN, even though he is an adult under the law. I, too, have the relative age of a child to a 75 - year - old acquaintance who calls me Pete. Let us assume that John Smith' is not a child who can be addressed by FN but is either my contemporary or my elder. The next important determiner for the form. of address will then be the speech situation.

If the situation is a formal one, then I must disregard all other rules and use social Identity plus Last Name. John Smith will always be addressed as Dr. Smith (or sometimes simply as Doctor, with Last Name understood) in the medical setting of office or hospital. (I am allowed to call him if my status is at least as high as his or if we are friends outside of our social roles, but the rest of my utterance must remain respectful.)

We are also obliged to address certain other people by their social identity in formal situation: public officials (Congressman: Your Honor), educators ( Professor or Doctor), leaders of meetings ( Mr. Chairman ), Roman Catholic priests (Father Daily) and nuns (Sister Anna), and so forth. By the way, note the sexist distinction in the formulas for priests and nuns. The formula for a priest is Father plus Last Name, but for a nun it is Sister plus Religious Name (usually an FN).

Most conversations, however, are not carried on in formal speech situations, and so the basic decision is when to use FN to TLN. A social acquaintance or newly hired colleague of approximately the same age and rank is usually introduced on an FN basis. "Pete, I'd like you to meet Harvy. "Now a problem arises if both age and rank of cone of the parties are higher: "Pete, I'd like you to meet Attorney Brown."

Attorney Brown may, of course, at any time signal me that he is willing to suspend the rules of address and allow an FN basis. Such a suspension is his privilege to bestow, and it is usually handled humorously, with a remark like, “I answer quicker to Bruce.”

Complications arise when relative age and relative rank are not both the same. A young doctor who joins a hospital finds it difficult to address a much older doctor. They are equal in rank (and therefore FN should be used) but the great disparity in ages calls for TLN. In such cases, the young doctor can use the No - Name (NN) formula, phrasing his utterances adroitly to avoid using any term of address at all.

English is quite exceptional among the world's languages in this respect. Most European languages oblige the speaker to choose between the familiar and formal second person singular (as in the French tu and vous), as English once did when “thou” was in use.

This is the basic American system, but the rules vary according to speech situations, subtle friendship or kin relationships between the speakers, regions of

A．relative ages

B．speech situation

C．relative ranks

D．relative incomes