31.What is the point the article tries to make?

　　A) Non-official status of a political organization involves　terrorist suspicion.

　　B) Terrorism defies clear-cut distinction.

　　C) Terrorist element exists in every violent conflict.

　　D) Government actions are never guilty of terrorism.

　　32.Which of the following could be concluded from the article?

　　A)An indisputable example of a terrorist group is PLO.

　　B)Actions to achieve political ends cannot avoid using force.

　　C)An acceptable criterion for terrorism is killing civilians.

　　D)International prestige is a justification for violence.

　　33.The classification of PLO is now less clear because___.

　　A) it begins to show friendly attitude towards Israel

　　B) it stands for an independent state in the Middle East

　　C) it is no longer engaged in random performance of violence

　　D) it is the elected political representative of the Palestine

　　34.It could be logically inferred from the article that____.

　　A) terrorism is not being defined on ethical criteria

　　B) defense actions committed on a foreign land is admissible

　　C) terrorism unavoidably involves immoral policies

　　D) democratic nations are innocent of terrorism

　　35.The author wrote this article to ___.

　　A) show sympathy to unrecognized national forces

　　B) condemn political motives in defining terrorism

　　C) justify the ambiguity in giving terrorism labels

　　D) call for better approaches to terrorism

　　Passage Four

　　Questions 36 to 40 are based on the following passage:

　　It is curious how much one despises and condemns the vices which one　does not happen to possess. I am indeed not a severe man, nor would　I permit myself to become intolerant of those failings which I share　with others. But, having no particular temptation to be untruthful,　I find myself believing that when one comes to think of it, truth is　the major virtue and lying the most blameworthy of all the vices.I　should like, therefore, to get my mind a little clearer on the truth　question. I flatter myself, as I have said, that I am a truthful　man: a man who, when he tells a lie, is careful not to forget that　he has done so, and who takes infinite precautions to prevent his　being found out. This, in the end, is the only test by which you can　distinguish the liar from the man of truth. The latter which is　bothered by untruthfulness, is worried and anxious. The real liar,　however, is merely amused: he doesn’t mind in the least even if he　is subsequently exposed: he regards the truthful man as somewhat of　a fool.

　　But this surely is one of the many false statements with which the　real liar will try hard to idealize his failing. It may be inevitabe　and even just to tell lies, but it cannot seriously be argued that　such habits are intelligent. A lie is always an act of mental　cowardice, whereas intelligence is brave. And yet there was　Bismarck, and yet there was Napoleon-surely intelligent man, and　surely liars. The problem, therefore, is not so simple as it seems.　It was simple enough, in those old days, to define with approximate　accuracy when a given statement ceased to be the truth and became a　lie. The essential test was whether the maker of a false statement　knew that he was saying something false, and consciously wished his　audience to accept, and to remain under, this false impression. Life　in civilized communities is a process of adjusting the personal to　the social, of conforming the individual impression to the joint　impressions of the common people. This process of adjustment leads　inevitably and rightly to a certain unconscious deception. Absolute　truth, whether unconscious or even conscious, is thus impossible. It　is to relative truth only that we can hope to aspire.