Agreement made by the President with other countries（ ） the approval of the senate.
A.is subjected to B.is subject to C.draws out D.substitute for
有疑问？点此联系我们
收藏该题
查看答案
Agreement made by the President with other countries（ ） the approval of the senate.
People like being trusted. They are annoyed, angry, or feel hurt if they are regarded with （1） .They think that they are（2）an injustice. They like being trusted for two reasons:(l)It is a tribute to their honesty, truth, strength, （3），kindness and good character;(2)They find it easier to cheat others. These two （4）Suggest what our attitude towards trust in （5） should be. It is not a simple attitude. We must keep a balance between two （6） over suspiciousness and infantile naivety.A parallel to our trust in people could be our trust in natural （7）.However careful we are, we cannot guarantee （8） safety for ourselves in the physical world, yet we act as（9 ）we can trust an ordered series of physical events. We take the bus to work in the morning （10）that we will arrive safely at our office or school. We have no （11） that we will. The bus could be （12） in an accident.If we were to （13） every accident that might happen to us we would never do anything.We would just remain sitting at home. Even then we could never be absolutely （14） that the ceiling would not collapse on us. （15）we are to do anything at all, we must take risks. Of course we try to reduce risks to a （16）。Similarly with regard to people, trusting them involves taking the risks of being （17 ） .Not trusting them places us outside the area of community activity,（18） trust is an essential bond in community living. In a competitive, materialistic world it would be（19） to trust everyone in everything. However, we should widen the area of trust as far as possible. We cannot eliminate all risks in such trust （20）we should lessen them as far as possible by reliance on intelligence and experience worth our own and those of adults whose reliability has been proven.
The heat in summer is no less（ ） here in this mountain region.
A divorcee is the sole provider in a typical “single parent” family.
The difference in tone and language must strike us, as soon as it is philosophy that speaks: that change should remind us that even if the function of religion and that of reason coincide. This function is performed in the two cases by very different organs. Religions are many, reason one. Religion consists of conscious ideas, hopes, enthusiasms, and objects of worship; it operates by grace and flourishes by prayer. Reason, on the other hand, is a mere principle or potential order, on which indeed we may come to reflect but which exists in us ideally only, without variation or stress of any kind. We conform or do not conform to it; it does not urge or chide us, not call for any emotions on our part other than those naturally aroused by the various objects which it unfolds in their true nature and proportion. Religion brings some order into life by weighting it with new materials. Reason adds to the natural materials only the perfect order which it introduces into them. Rationality is nothing but a form, an ideal .constitution which experience may more or less embody. Religion is a part of experience itself, a mass of sentiments and ideas. The one is an inviolate principle, the other a changing and struggling force. And yet this struggling and changing force of religion seems to direct man toward something eternal. It seems to make for an ultimate harmony within the soul and for an ultimate harmony between the soul and all that the soul depends upon. Religion, in its intent is a more conscious and direct pursuit of the Life of Reason than is society. Science, or art, for these approach and fill out the ideal life tentatively and piecemeal, hardly regarding the foal or caring for the ultimate justification of the instinctive aims. Religion also has an instinctive and blind side and bubbles up in all manner of chance practices and intuitions; soon, however, it feels its way toward the heart or things, and from whatever quarter it may come, veers in the direction of the ultimate.
Nevertheless, we must confess that this religious pursuit of the Life of Reason has been singularly abortive. Those within the pale of each religion may prevail upon themselves, to express satisfaction with its results, thanks to a fond partiality in reading the past and generous draughts of hope for the future; but any one regarding the various religions at once and comparing their achievements with what reason requires, must feel how terrible is the disappointment which they have one and all prepared for mankind. Their chief anxiety has been to offer imaginary remedies for mortal ills, some of which are incurable essentially, while others might have been really cured by well-directed effort. The Greed oracles, for instance, pretended to heal out natural ignorance, which has its appropriate though difficult cure, while the Christian vision of heaven pretended to be an antidote to our natural death—the inevitable correlate of birth and of a changing and conditioned existence. By methods of this sort little can be done for the real betterment of life. To confuse intelligence and dislocate sentiment by gratuitous fictions is a short-sighted way of pursuing happiness. Nature is soon avenged. An unhealthy exaltation and a one-sided morality have to be followed by regrettable reactions. When these come. The real rewards of life may seem vain to a relaxed vitality, and the very name of virtue may irritate young spirits untrained in natural excellence. Thus religion too often debauches the morality it comes to sanction and impedes the science it ought to fulfill.What is the secret of this ineptitude? Why does religion, so near to rationality in its purpose, fall so short of it in results? The answer is easy; religion pursues rationality through the imagination. When it explains events or assigns causes, it is an imaginative substitute for science. When it gives precepts, insinuates ideals, or remolds aspiration, it is an imaginative substitute for wisdom—I mean for the deliberate and impartial pursuit of all food. The condition and the aims of lif
Perhaps all criminals should be required to carry cards which read: Fragile: Handle with Care. It will never do, these days, to go around referring to criminals as violent thugs. You must refer to them politely as “social misfits”. The professional killer who wouldn’t think twice about using his club or knife to batter some harmless old lady to death in order to rob her of her meager life-savings must never be given a dose of his own medicine. He is in need of “hospital treatment”. According to his misguided defenders, society is to blame. A wicked society breeds evil - or so the argument goes. When you listen to this kind of talk, it makes you wonder why aren’t all criminals. We have done away with the absurdly harsh laws of the nineteenth century and this is only right. But surely enough is enough. The most senseless piece of criminal legislation in Britain and a number of other countries has been the suspension of capital punishment.The violent criminal has become a kind of hero-figure in our time. He is glorified on the screen; he is pursued by the press and paid vast sums of money for his “memoirs”. Newspapers which specialize in crime reporting enjoy enormous circulations and the publishers of trashy cops and robbers stories or “murder mysteries” have never had it so good. When you read about the achievements of the great train robbery, it makes you wonder whether you are reading about some glorious resistance movement. The hardened criminal is cuddled and cosseted by the sociologists on the one hand and adored as a hero by the masses on the other. It’s no wonder he is a privileged person who expects and receives VIP treatment wherever he goes.Capital punishment used to be a major deterrent. It made the violent robber think twice before pulling the trigger. It gave the cold-blooded prisoner something to ponder about while he was shaking up or serving his arsenic cocktail. It prevented unarmed policemen from being killed while pursuing their duty by killers armed with automatic weapons. Above all, it protected the most vulnerable members of society, young children, from brutal violence. It is horrifying to think that the criminal can literally get away with murder. We all know that “life sentence” does not mean what it says. After ten years or so of good conduct, the most desperate villain is free to return to society where he will live very comfortably, thank you, on the proceeds of his crime, or he will go on committing offences until he is caught again.People are always willing to hold liberal views at the expense of others. It’s always fashionable to pose as the defender of the under-dog, so long as you, personally, remain unaffected. Did the defenders of crime, one wonders, in their desire for fair-play, consult the victims before they suspended capital punishment? Hardly, you see they couldn’t, because all the victims were dead.1.According to the passage, which of the following is the author’s opinion?2.The tone taken by the author towards these defenders of crime in the passage is （ ）.3.“Capital punishment” most probably means（ ） .4.Which of the following is true according to the passage?5.What conclusion can be drawn from the passage?
