Text 2

All around theworld, lawyers generate more hostility than the members of any other profession--- with the possible exception of journalism. But there are few places whereclients have more grounds for complaint than America。

During the decadebefore the economic crisis, spending on legal services in America grewtwice as fast as inflation. The best lawyers made skyscrapers-full of money.Tempting ever more students to pile into law schools. But most law graduatesnever get a big-firm job. Many of them instead become the kind ofnuisance-lawsuit filer that makes the tort system a costly nightmare。

There are manyreasons for this. One is the excessive costs of a legal education. There isjust one path for a lawyer in most American states; a four-year undergraduatedegree in some unrelated subject, then a three-year law degree at one of 200law schools authorized by the American Bar Association and an expensivepreparation for the bar exam. This leaves today’s average law-school graduatewith $100,000 of debt on top of undergraduate debts. Law-school debt means thatthey have to work fearsomely hard。

Reforming thesystem would help both lawyers and their customers. Sensible ideas have beenaround for a long time, but the state-level bodies that govern the professionhave been too conservative to implement them. One idea is to allow people tostudy law as an undergraduate degree. Another is to let students sit for thebar after only two years of law school. If the bar exam is truly a stern enoughtest for a would-be lawyer, those who can sit it earlier should be allowed todo so. Students who do need the extra training could cut their debt mountain bya third。

The otherreason why costs are so high is the restrictive guild-like ownership structure ofthe business. Except in the District of Columbia, non-lawyers may not own any share of alaw firm. This keeps fees high and innovation slow. There is pressure forchange from within the profession, but opponents of change among the regulatorsinsist that keeping outsiders out of a law firm isolates lawyers from thepressure to make money rather than serve clients ethically。

In fact,allowing non-lawyers to own shares in law firms would reduce costs and improveservices to customers, by encouraging law firms to use technology and to employprofessional managers to focus on improving firms’ efficiency . After all,other countries, such as Australiaand Britain,have stared liberalizing their legal professions. America should follow。

26. A lot of students take up law as theirprofession due to

[A] the growing demand from clients

[B] the increasing pressure of inflation

[C] the prospect of working in big firms

[D] the attraction of financial rewards

27. which of the following adds to the costs oflegal education in most American states?

[A] Higher tuition fees for undergraduate studies

[B] Receiving training by professionalassociations

[C] Admissions approval from the bar association

[D] Pursuing a bachelors degree in another major

28. Hindrance to the reform of the legal systemoriginates from

[A] the rigid bodies governing the profession

[B] lawyers’ and clients’ strong resistance

[C] the stern exam for would-be lawyers。

[D] non-professionals’ sharpcriticism

29. The guild-like ownership structure isconsidered “restrictive”partly because

[A] prevents lawyers from gaining due profits。

[B] bans outsiders’ involvement in theprofession。

[C] aggravates the ethical situation in the trade。

[D] keeps lawyers form lidding law-firm shares。

30. In the text ,the author mainly discusses。

[A] the factors that help make a successfullawyer in America。

[B] a problem in America’s legal profession ardsolutions to it。

[C] the role undergraduate studies in America’slegal education。

[D] flawed ownership of America’s law firms and its causes。

Text 3

The US＄3 million Fundamental Physics isindeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he acceptedthis year’s award in March. And it is fair from the only one of this type. As aNew Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awardsfor research have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like theFundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephones-number-sized bankaccounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in theirchosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention tothose who have succeeded in science。

What’s not tolike? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the NewsFeature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstartentrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels. The newawards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists.They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research.They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fundpeer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius。

The goals of the prize-givers seem asscattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people intoscience, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research。

As Nature

has pointed out before, there ere some legitimate concerns about how scienceprize-both new and old –are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in LifeSciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the lifescience include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit three recipients per prize,each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborativenature of modern research – as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row overwho is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson.The Nobel were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who haddecided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention,has given them legitimacy。

As much assome science may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First,most researchers would accept such a prize of they were offered one. Second, itis surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather goelsewhere. It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism- that is theculture of research, after all-but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with asthey please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace。

31. The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as

[A] a symbolof the entrepreneurs’ wealth。

[B] a handsomereward for researchers。

[C] a possiblereplacement of the Nobel Prizes。

[D] an exampleof bankers’investments。

32. The critics think that the new awards will mostbenefit

[A] theprofit-oriented scientists。

[B] the achievement-based system。

[C] the founders of the new awards

[D] peer-review-led research。

33. The discovery of theHiggs boson is a typical case which involves

[A] legitimate concerns over the new prizes。

[B] controversies over the recipients＇s status。

[C] the joint effort of modern researchers。

[D] the demonstration of research finding。

34. According to Paragraph 4, which of thefollowing is true of the Nobels?

[A] History has never cast doubt on them。

[B] their endurance has done justice to them。

[C] They are the most representative honor。

[D] Their legitimacy has long been in dispute。

35. The author believes that the new awards are

[A] unworthy of public attention。

[B] subject to undesirable changes 。

[C] harmful to the culture of research。

[D] acceptable despite the criticism。