上外所有卷close text

98年英语综合 II. Cloze How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. 99年英语综合 II. Cloze Another fundamental characteristic of the guerrilla soldier is his flexibility, his ability to adapt himself to all circumstances, and to convert to his service all of the accidents of the action. Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight and constanly surprises the enemy. In the first place, there are only elastic positions, specific places that the enemy cannot pass, and places of diverting him. Frequently, the enemy, after easily overcoming difficulties in a gradual advance, is surprised to find himself suddenly and solidly detained without possibilities of moving forward. This is due to the fact that the guerrilla-defended positions, when they have been selected on the basis of a careful study of the ground, are invulnerable. It is not the number of attacking soldiers that counts, but the number of defending soldiers. Once that number has been placed there, it can nearly always hold off a battalion with success. It is a major task of the chiefs to choose well the moment and the place for defending a position without retreat. The form of attack of a guerrilla army is also different; starting with surprise and fury, irresistible, it suddenly converts itself into total passivity. The surviving enemy, resting, believes that the attacker has departed; he begins to relax, to return to the routine life of the camp or of the fortress, when suddenly a new attack bursts forth in another place, with the same characteristics, while the main body of the guerrilla band lies in wait to intercept reinforcements. 2000年英语综合 I. Cloze http://www.che-lives.com/home/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=4 Acts of sabotage are very important. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths. There is one point very much in controversy in opinions about terrorism. Many consider that its use, by provoking police oppression, hinders all more or less legal or semiclandestine contact with the masses and makes impossible unification for actions that will be necessary at a critical moment. This is correct; but it also happens that in a civil war the repression by the governmental power in certain towns is already so great that, in fact, every type of legal action is suppressed already, and any action of the masses that is not supported by arms is impossible. It is therefore necessary to be circumspect in adopting methods of this type and to consider the consequences that they may bring for the revolution. At any rate, well-managed sabotage is always a very effective arm, though it should not be employed to put means of production out of action, leaving a sector of the population paralyzed (and thus without work) unless this paralysis affects the normal life of the society. It is ridiculous to carry out sabotage against a soft-drink factory, but it is absolutely correct and advisable to carry out sabotage against a power plant. In the first case, a certain number of workers are put out of a job but nothing is done to modify the rhythm of industrial life; in the second case, there will again be displaced workers, but this is entirely justified by the paralysis of the life of the region. 2001年英语综合 I cloze (不好意思原文被我弄不见了，但答案是这样没错) 1. neither 2. potentially 3. or 4. themselves 5. sex 6. each 7. own 8. to 9. but 10. contrast 11. without 12. because 13. also 14. in terms of 15. wifehood 2002年英语综合 I  Cloze (这个忘记划线了，大家DIY一下吧~) First of all ,love is a joint experience between two persons---but the fact that is a joint experience does not mean that is a similar experience to the two pelople involved,There are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries.Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored-up love which has lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto.And somehow every lover knows this.He feels in his soul that his love is solitary thing.He comes to know a new,stange loneliness and it is this knowledge which makes him suffer.So there is only one thing for the lover to do . He must house his love eithin himself as best he can; be must create for himself a whole now inward world ---a world intense and strange,completely in himself.Let is be added here that this lover about whom we speak need not necessarily be a young man saving for a weeding ring--this lover can be man ,woman,child, or indeed andy human creature on this earth. II (这一题好像是根据上下文补充两个句子,然后回答几个问题~) Externally at some given period of history and in some set of social arrangements it may often look as if one sex gained and the other lost, but such gains and losses must in the end be temporary. To the extent that women are denied the right to use their minds, their sons suffer as well as their daughters. An over-emphasis on the importance of virility will in the end make the lives of men as instrumental as an over-emphasis on their merely reproductive functions makes the lives of women. If our analysis is deep enough and our time-perspective long enough, if we hold in mind all the various possibilities that other cultures hint at or fully embody, it is possible to say that to the extent that either sex is disadvantaged, the whole culture is poorer, and the sex that, superficially, inherits the earth, inherits only a very partial legacy, the more whole the culture, the more whole each member, each man, each woman, each child will be. Each sex is shaped from birth by the presence and the behavior of both sexes and each sex is dependent upon both. The myths that conjure up islands of women who live all alone without men always contain, and rightly, some flaw in the picture. A one-sex world would be and imperfect world, for it would be a world without a future. Only a denial of life itself makes it possible to deny the interdependence of the sexes. Once that interdependence is recognized and traced in minute detail to the infant’s first experience of the contrast between the extra roughness of a shaven cheek and a deeper voice and his mother’s softer skin and higher voice, any program which claims that the wholeness of one sex can be advanced without considering the other is automatically disallowed. Isolated consideration of the position of women becomes as essentially one-sided as the isolated consideration of the position of men. We must think instead of how to live in a two-sex world so that each sex will benefit at every point from each expression of the presence of two sexes. 2006英语综合 I. Cloze Literature and Science by Matthew Arnold (1882) Practical people talk with a smile of Plato and of his absolute ideas; and it is impossible to deny that Plato's ideas do often seem unpractical and impracticable, and especially when one views them in connection with the life of a great work-a-day world like the United States. The necessary staple of the life of such a world Plato regards with disdain; handicraft and trade and the working professions he regards with disdain; but what becomes of the life of an industrial modern community if you take handicraft and trade and the working professions out of it? The base mechanic arts and handicrafts, says Plato, bring about a natural weakness in the principle of excellence in a man, so that he cannot govern the ignoble growths in him, but nurses them, and cannot understand fostering any other. Those who exercise such arts and trades, as they have their bodies, he says, marred by their vulgar businesses, so they have their souls, too, bowed and broken by them. And if one of these uncomely people has a mind to seek self and philosophy, Plato compares him to a bald little tinker, who has scraped together money, and has got his release from service, and has had a bath, and bought a new coat, and is rigged out like a bridegroom about to marry the daughter of his master who has fallen into poor and helpless estate. Nor do the working professions fare any better than trade at the hands of Plato. He draws for us an inimitable picture of the working lawyer, and of his life of bondage; he shows how this bondage from his youth up has stunted and warped him, and made him small and crooked of soul, encompassing him with difficulties which he is not man enough to rely on justice and truth as means to encounter, but has recourse, for help out of them, to falsehood and wrong. And so, says Plato, this poor creature is bent and broken, and grows up from boy to man without a particle of soundness in him, although exceedingly smart and clever in his own esteem. II. Proof reading (这一题的原文是在一个日本医生的博客上找到的,真是离奇的来源啊~) In its more extreme forms persecution mania is a recognised form of insanity. Some people imagine that others wish to kill them, or imprison them, or to do them some other grave injury. Often the wish to protect themselves against imaginary persecutors leads them into acts of violence which make it necessary to restrain their liberty. This, like many other forms of insanity, is only an exaggeration of a tendency not at all uncommon among people who count as normal . I do not propose to discuss the extreme forms, which are a matter for a psychiatrist. It is the milder forms that I wish to consider, because they are a very frequent cause of unhappiness, and because, not having gone so far as to produce definite insanity, they are still capable of being dealt with by the patient himself, provided he can be induced to diagnose his trouble rightly and to see that its origin lies within himself and not in the supposed hostility or unkindness of others. We are all familiar with the type of person, man or woman, who, according to his own account, is perpetually the victim of ingratitude, unkindness, and treachery. People of this kind are often extraordinarily plausible, and secure warm sympathy from those who have not known them long. There is, as a rule, nothing inherently improbable about each separate story that they relate. 2007年英语综合 I CLOZE (先说明下:红色的单词是填空的地方,当天考完有位网友发过,但我记得的空和他的有一个不一样，我比较信任我自己的记忆啦~他记得的那个我用紫色标出来了) At the White House on New Year's Day, 1907, Theodore Roosevelt set a world record for shaking hands--8,150 of them, according to his biographer Edmund Morris, including those of "every aide, usher and policeman in sight." Having done his exuberant political duty, says Morris, Teddy went upstairs and privately, disgustedly, scrubbed himself clean. We may presume that on Inauguration Day in January 2001, President Trump will not try to break Roosevelt's record. Trump's views are known: "I think the handshake is barbaric... Shaking hands, you catch the flu, you catch this, you catch all sorts of things." The Donald may be right. The more you think about it, the more disgusting the handshake becomes. Although it is a public gesture, a reflexive ceremony of greeting, the handshake has a clammy dimension of intimacy. The clamminess is illustrated in principle by the following: a young enthusiast rushed up to James Joyce and asked, "May I kiss the hand that wrote Ulysses?" Joyce replied, "No. It did lots of other things too." Most of us don't think about it. The handshake is expected and is executed automatically in a ritual little babble of nicetomeetyouhowdoyoudo? If you had an attack of fastidiousness and refused to shake someone's extended hand, then the handshake would become an awkwardness and an issue, a refusal being an outright insult. Now that he is almost a candidate, how is the fussy, hygienic Donald to keep his sanity in an election year's orgies of grip-and-grin? Mingling with the unwashed, he will presumably shake tens of thousands of germy hands. The most graceful substitute--the Hindu namaste (slight bow, hands clasped near the heart as in prayer)--would not play well in American politics. One alternative might be to shake your own hand, brandishing the two-handed clutch in front of your face like a champ while looking the voter in the eye. No. Too much self-congratulation. A politician mustn't advertise his narcissism. Best not to think about it. Television has taken so much of the physicality--the sheer touch--out of politics that we should cherish the vestigial handshake, the last, fleeting, primitive human contact, flesh to flesh, sweat to sweat, pulse to pulse. A true politician loves shaking hands. Study Bill Clinton working a rope line. Greedily, avidly, his long, curiously angled fingers reach deep into the crowd to make the touch, an image that in my mind has some cartoonist's kinship to Michelangelo's Adam on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. Lyndon Johnson pressed flesh with the same gluttonous physicality, wading into the human surf, clawing and pawing into the democratic mass with an appetite amazing, alarming. On the receiving side, the handshake may be a form of souvenir collecting. My father used to keep a framed photograph of himself shaking hands with the young Richard Nixon, the two of them beaming at each other; my father posted a little sign at the bottom of the picture: COUNT YOUR FINGERS. Historical continuities: Brooke Astor, now 97, remembers the day when, as a little girl, she shook the hand of Henry Adams. I recall the day when I was a child working for the summer as a Senate page and the aged Herbert Hoover visited the Senate chamber, not a celebrity so much as a curiosity. He looked like a Rotarian Santa Claus. After the Senators and pages all shook his hand--a dry hand, soft and bony at the same time, like grasping a small, fragile bird--another page, overcome by his (rather forgiving) sense of history, exclaimed, "I'm never going to wash my hand again!" If the social handshake has its anthropological origins in the idea of primitive man showing he was not carrying a weapon, the political handshake springs from long ago when a king's touch might do magic and when the power of such connection seemed infinitely morepertinent than the potential germs. To touch was to partake somehow--maybe even through the germs--of the king's magic. Surely voters will imagine that when they shake hands with Donald Trump, gold will rub off. (Of course, bad magic may also be communicated. Maybe the handshake with Herbert Hoover many years ago explains why, from time to time, I am visited by a great depression.) If Trump were to think about it, he might be grateful that contact with the electorate is not more intimate than it is. Suppose it were customary for a politician to kiss not only an occasional baby but also every voter in that mating-goose, cocktail-party way? It could be even worse. Among some tribes in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, men say hello by genially clasping each other's genitals. Trump should be relieved he won't have to work that kind of rope line. 2007年英语综合 II 改错(只是把跟试卷上不一样的地方用红色标出来了，不代表就一定得这样改) Not too many decades ago it seemed "obvious" both to the general public and to sociologists that modern society has changed people's natural relations, loosened their responsibilities to kin (亲戚) and neighbors, and substituted in their place superficial relationships with passing acquaintances. However, in recent years a growing body of research has revealed that the "obvious" is not true. It seems that if you are a city resident, you typically know a smaller proportion of your neighbors than you do if you are a resident of a smaller community. But, for the most part, this fact has few significant consequences. It does not necessarily follow that if you know few of your neighbors you will know no one else. 　Even in very large cities, people maintain close social ties within small, private social worlds. Indeed, the number and quality of meaningful relationships do not differ between more and less urban people. Small-town residents are more involved with kin than are big-city residents. Yet city dwellers compensate by developing friendships with people who share similar interests and activities. Urbanism may produce a different style of life, but the quality of life does not differ between town and city. Nor are residents of large communities any likelier to display psychological symptoms of stress or alienation, a feeling of not belonging, than are residents of smaller communities. However, city dwellers do worry more about crime, and this leads them to a distrust of strangers.