SectionⅡ Reading Comprehension

　　Part A

　　Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET . (40 points)

　　Text 1

　　A divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that police may take DNA samples when booking those arrested for serious crimes, narrowly upholding a Maryland law and opening the door to more widespread collection of DNA by law enforcement.

　　The court ruled 5 to 4 that government has a legitimate interest in collecting DNA from arrestees, just as it takes photographs and collects fingerprints. Rejecting the view that the practice constitutes an unlawful search, the majority said it was justified to establish the identity of the person in custody. “DNA identification represents an important advance in the techniques used by law enforcement to serve legitimate police concerns for as long as there have been arrests,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.

　　The dissenters were three of the court’s liberals plus conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who amplified his displeasure by reading a summary of his dissent.“The court has cast aside a bedrock rule of our Fourth Amendment law: that the government may not search its citizens for evidence of crime unless there is a reasonable cause to believe that such evidence will be found,” In his dissent, Scalia wrote that the majority’s attempts to justify the use of DNA as an identification tool “taxes the naivety of the naive.” He added, “Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

　　Kennedy said Maryland’s law is more limited than that. He noted that DNA can be taken only from those suspected of “serious” crime, that the sample is destroyed if the arrestee is not convicted, and that the DNA tests did not violate the privacy of the person by revealing genetic traits or medical information. Besides that, Kennedy said, DNA identification contains critical clues about whether an arrestee should be eligible for being released on bail or whether he would be likely to flee because he had committed a crime more serious than the one for which he was arrested.

　　But Scalia said “Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law- enforcement searches,” He concluded with a nod to the Framers of the Constitution: “I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

　　The decision was evidence of how the court 抯 ideological differences blur on Fourth Amendment cases. Earlier this term, Scalia joined Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan to rule that bringing a police dog to a suspected drug dealer’s door without a warrant amounted to an unlawful search. And Scalia joined Sotomayor 抯 broad ruling in another case that held police officers generally must try to get a warrant before forcing uncooperative drunken-driving suspects to submit to a blood test.

　　21.The majority of Supreme Court Justices hold that the collection of DNA samples from arrestees .

　　[A]overestimates the implications of techniques

　　[B]provides an effective identification tool

　　[C]serves the interest of the government

　　[D]constitutes an illegal police search

　　22.According to Paragraph 3, Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent is largely out of .

　　[A]his strict adherence to the Fourth Amendment law

　　[B]his concern over misjudgment and wrong arrests

　　[C]his defense of a citizen’s privacy in lawenforcement

　　[D]his doubt about the reliability of DNAidentification

　　23.To which of the following would Kennedy agree, according to Paragraph 4?

　　[A]Maryland’s law about DNA collection has obvious limitations and needs to beimproved.

　　[B]DNA samples should be taken from for both serious crimes and minor offences.

　　[C]DNA samples collected from arrestees should be entered into a national DNAdatabase.

　　[D]DNA identification provides critical information about the potential danger posed by an arrestee.

　　24.By mentioning the Framers of the Constitution, Scalia intended to .

　　[A]question the nobility of the judicial process of Maryland case

　　[B]demonstrate the historic significance of Maryland case

　　[C]denounce the court’s decision as against the protection of personal rights

　　[D]illustrate the embarrassing DNA sample collection procedure

　　25.Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?

　　[A]The court’s attitude on Fourth Amendment cases is increasingly apparent.

　　[B]The justices usually split on decisions about the Fourth Amendment cases.

　　[C]Scalia has an inconsistent attitude on the issue of law-enforcement searches.

　　[D]The court sometimes goes against the Fourth Amendment deliberately.

　　Text 2

　　Being the first to do something matters. Being the first to tell other folks that you did it matters too. For scientists, publication in a peer reviewed journal is the primary way of communicating experimental results, so getting a manuscript through the review process and into publication in a timely manner is important. This can get complicated if you are also trying to be published in the most prestigious journal possible.

　　For example, a scientist could submit their manuscript to a prestigious journal like Nature or Science. The article is sent out for review and within a few months the authors get a note back saying that while their science was methodologically sound, it just wasn’t innovative enough for those journals. Next, the scientist submits it to the top journal in their field, only to be told in a few months that it was too interdisciplinary for that journal. A scientist may go through several rounds

　　of submission and rejection looking for a suitable home for their manuscript, worrying as the months slip by that someone else has beat them to the publication of similar results.

　　Enter the folks behind new “portable peer review” services. Traditionally, the review process was done within the organizational structure of the journal you submitted your manuscript to. These new services are independent of specific journals and their goal is to cut down on the redundant work being done in the publication process. This separates the review process from the publication process, and authors could take their reviews with them as they search for an appropriate publication venue.

　　While the details vary widely, it is similar to traditional journal based peer review. An author submits a manuscript, reviewers are located, and the reviewers provide commentary on the paper. The portable peer review services have generally taken the time to develop detailed rubrics and detailed guiding questions for reviewers. The authors can then revise their manuscripts and take everything to a journal of their choice. The portable peer review services are also working hard to cooperate with journal editors, allowing them to tell their authors that reviews from their service will be welcomed at specific journals. Some journals have instituted policies accepting outside peer review, starting to welcome manuscripts that have been rejected by higher impactjournals.

　　Importantly, these services often mention the desire to develop a “reputation economy” for reviewers. While many reviewers take the time to provide polite, constructive criticism of a manuscript, there are others who may simply say “this sucks.” Knowing who is more likely to provide the former ahead of time could be useful. For example, Peerage of Science offers a “peer review of peer review” that rates reviewer reviews, and provides reviewer scores on reviewer profiles.

　　Although scientists recognize that peer review has problems, most recognize that it serves a valued role in communicating scientific research. New portable peer review services hope to improve the quality of reviews while simultaneously reducing the amount of redundancy in the publication system.

　　26.In the first two paragraphs, the author discusses .

　　[A]the background information of journal editing

　　[B]the significance of submitting manuscripts timely

　　[C]the complicated route of getting published in prestigious journals

　　[D]the redundant procedure followed in the traditional publication system

　　27.The portable peer review services emerge to help .

　　[A]keep peer reviews independent and impartial

　　[B]avoid repetition of scientific studies

　　[C]speed up the publication process

　　[D]curb the excessive publication

　　28.According to Paragraph 4, the new services can help authors .

　　[A]better their manuscripts before submitting to journals

　　[B]get a detailed revising guidelines from reviewers

　　[C]learn review results from journal editors in advance

　　[D]eliminate reviewers’ negative feelings toward once-rejected manuscripts

　　29.Paragraph 5 indicates that “reputation economy” is developed to .

　　[A]guarantee the quality of manuscripts

　　[B]earn reviewers academic credit and huge profits

　　[C]make the reviews polite and easily accepted by authors

　　[D]improve reviewers’ conscientiousness in their reviews

　　30.What is the subject of the text?

　　[A]Peer review still has a role to play.

　　[B]Portable peer review is emerging.

　　[C]The merits and problems of portable peer review.

　　[D]Online publication: solver to the redundant publication system.

　　Text 3

　　The Internet has turned into a massive surveillance tool. We're constantly monitored, sometimes by corporations wanting to sell us stuff and sometimes by governments wanting to keep an eye on us. Momentary conversation is over. Wholesale surveillance is the norm.

　　It's about to get worse, though. The Internet of Things refers to a world where much more than our computers and cell phones is Internet-enabled. Soon there will be Internet-connected modules on our cars and home appliances. Internet-enabled medical devices will collect real-time health data about us. In its extreme, everything can be connected to the Internet. It's true that the "Internet of Things" will make a lot of wonderful things possible, but it also gives the governments and corporations that follow our every move something they don't yet have: eyes and ears.

　　In the near term, the sheer volume of data will limit the sorts of conclusions that can be drawn. The invasiveness of “Internet Things” new technologies depends on asking the right questions. For example, if a private investigator is watching you in the physical world, she or he might observe odd behavior and investigate further based on that. Such occasional observations are harder to achieve when you're filtering databases based on pre-programmed queries. In other words, it's easier to ask questions about what you purchased and where you were than to ask what you did with your purchases and why you went where you did. These analytical limitations also mean that companies like Google and Facebook will benefit more from the Internet of Things than individuals -- not only because they have access to more data, but also because they have more sophisticated query technology.

　　In the longer term, the Internet of Things means ubiquitous surveillance. If an object "knows" you have purchased it, and communicates via either Wi-Fi or the mobile network, then whoever or whatever it is communicating with will know where you are. Your car will know who is in it, who is driving, and what traffic laws that driver is following or ignoring. Fast food restaurants will know what you usually order, and exactly how to entice you to order more.

　　Will you know any of this? It depends. Lots of these devices have, and will have, privacy settings. But these settings are remarkable not in how much privacy they afford, but in how much they deny. Access will likely be similar to your browsing habits, your searches on Google, and your text messages from your phone. You'd think that your privacy settings would keep random strangers from learning everything about you, but it only keeps random strangers who don't pay for the privilege – or don't work for the government and have the ability to

　　demand the data. Power is what matters here: you'll be able to keep the powerless from invading your privacy, but you'll have no ability to prevent the powerful from doing it again and again.

　　31.The first two paragraphs mainly discuss .

　　[A]the uses of personal data collection

　　[B]the beneficial aspects of surveillance

　　[C]an emerging large-scale threat to privacy

　　[D]an unknown side of governments and corporations

　　32.The example of the private investigator’s act is mentionedto highlight .

　　[A]the limitation of program-based queries

　　[B]the significance of access to more data

　　[C]the way technology companies collect data

　　[D]the complexity of the Internet of Things world

　　33.The author implies that privacy settings .

　　[A]can inform people of their being under surveillance

　　[B]can protect people from being monitored

　　[C]are helping companies collect personal data

　　[D]are essential for the Internet of Things

　　34.The last paragraph implies that personal privacy_ .

　　[A]will be accessible to the general public

　　[B]will fall victim to the privileged

　　[C]will be under effective protection

　　[D]will be an exclusive right for high-tech elites

　　35.The author’s tone behind Internet of Things is one of .

　　[A]welcome

　　[B]criticism

　　[C]indifference

　　[D]worry

　　Text 4

　　When a coalition of interest activists and web companies scuppered the Hollywood- sponsored Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) last year, they warned Congress that future attempts to push through legislation that threatened digital freedoms would be met with a similar response. Now some of them are up in arms again, this time against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This is one of several bills designed to reinforce America’s cyber- defences that were being discussed by the House of Representatives.

　　Whatever the outcome of the deliberations, the fuss surrounding CISPA is unlikely to die down soon. Its fans, which include companies such as IBM and Intel, say the bill’s provisions will help America defend itself against attempts by hackers to penetrate vital infrastructure and pinch companies’ intellectual property. CISPA’s critics, which include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights group, and Mozilla, the maker of the Firefox web browser, argue that it could

　　achieve that goal without ignoring privacy laws designed to prevent the government getting its hands on citizens’ private data without proper judicial oversight.

　　CISPA aims to encourage intelligence-sharing. Companies and spies often keep quiet about cyber-threats because they fear that sharing the details many land them in legal hot water. But this makes it harder both to hunt hackers, and to defend power grids and other infrastructure against online assaults. The bill encourage both groups to be more forthcoming by offering them an exemption from civil and criminal liability when gathering and sharing data about cyber-threats.

　　The trouble is that although its goal is laudable, the bill is vague about what sort of information on cyber-threats can be shared. So in theory everything from e-mails to medical records could end up being shipped to intelligence agencies, even if it is not needed. Harvey Anderson of Mozilla says CISPA “creates a black hole” through which all kinds of data could be sucked in by the government.

　　The bill does forbid the use by officials of personal information from medical records, tax returns and a list of other documents. But its critics say it would be far better if companies had to get rid of such data before sharing what is left. They also note that the broad legal protection CISPA offers to firms could be abused by companies keen to cover up mishaps in their handling of customer data. A more carefully worded legal remedy would stop thathappening.

　　All this has exposed a rift in the internet world. Whereas Mozilla and other firms want CISPA to be overhauled or scrapped, some web firms that helped sink SOPA seem ambivalent. Google claims it has taken no formal position on the draft legislation and it “watching the process closely”. But TechNet, an industry group whose members include the web giant and Facebook, has written to the House Intelligence Committee expressing support for CISPA. If Google and other web companies do have doubts about some of the bill’s provisions, now would be the time for them to sound the alarm.

　　36.We learn from the first paragraph that SOPA has .

　　[A]incurred criticism

　　[B]raised suspicion

　　[C]received acclaim

　　[D]aroused curiosity

　　37.It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that the critics criticize CISPAfor its .

　　[A]obsession with cyber security

　　[B]invasion of intellectual property

　　[C]threat of privacy violation

　　[D]lack of judicial oversight

　　38.Harvey Anderson holds that CISPA .

　　[A]fails to clarify what kind of information can be shared

　　[B]adds huge burden to intelligence agencies

　　[C]facilitates the America’s cyber-defences by intelligence-sharing

　　[D]helps the government get hands on personal data

　　39.According to Paragraph 5, the critics note that CISPA .

　　[A]weakens government officials’power

　　[B]offers full data protection over access

　　[C]lacks justifiable punishment for data misuse

　　[D]stands all in favor of web companies

　　40 The author’s attitude towards the standing of those web firms like Google is one of .

　　[A]appreciation

　　[B]understanding

　　[C]indulgence

　　[D]opposition