The student tried to ______ the sympathy of the teacher by appearing with a plaster on his arm on the day of the exam.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Support for the plan was ______ and the planners hoped it would soon grow and spread.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Directions: Fill the gap with the most appropriate option that makes the sentence meaningful.

The Donald’s are very ___, as everything in their ___ house is made of gold except for the toilet paper holder, which is made of silver.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

The new mother fell asleep when her baby stopped crying, but the ______ was brief; the baby started up again almost immediately.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

We tried to ______ the dirty words that had been written on the wall, but nothing would erase it

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

The strange creature had small bumps on its torso that appeared to be ______ limbs.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

We should save our ______ for the street; in the classroom we should use proper grammar.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

What is he meaning of the word “repatriate” in Passage A?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

War brings out the best - and the worst - in human nature. Of course it does. There is no doubt about it. War is clearly a test of human nature. We have war heroes and we have war criminals and we also have war cowards. The heroes obviously bringing out the best in human nature and the criminals bringing out the worst.

It's really quite simple. All that we need to do is look at war mongrels. People such as Hitler need to be analyzed. Some of Hitler's ideas as a civil activist were, on a political level only, well thought of. Hitler's ideas of ethnic cleansing are what makes him a bad person and therefore brought out the worst in him. Hitler's followers had no idea of how powerful he would become and when he got all the power, he did not use it appropriately.

When talking about soldiers, bringing out the best would be running through a field and picking up a wounded soldier. This shows the best in human nature and that humans are caring and sensible people. When soldiers follow unlawful commands or commit mass genocide and brutal murders, that's when we see the worst in human nature. As of the end of World War II, obeying orders was no longer a defense for soldiers because they should know the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that war brought out the best in Robert Ross. He understood that thousands of lives were depending on him and he came through. He showed that humans can be compassionate, caring, and emotional people. He also died saving all the horses.

There are so many events that can bring out the best or worst in humans. It's not only war, but any time or high stress situation. I think that a time of civil disobedience would bring out the best and worst. I think we find though as humans, we have our own fine line of what's right and wrong and usually this line takes us in the right direction.

What are the keywords that divide the two group of hackers?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Today's information is highly interconnected by the Internet. With this interconnection of computer systems through the Internet comes computer crime. Breaking into computer systems, damaging information on computer systems, and stealing information on computer systems, more commonly known as hacking, has become extremely common on the Internet. As hacking becomes more frequent, and as some would say, more of a problem, should we consider hacking a criminal activity?

Information from across the world is stored on computer systems-most of which are connected, networked, to other computer systems through the Internet. In the ideal situation, this interconnection of information enables others from outside a specific computer network to access that specific computer network and its information. This has created a world in which information is extremely important and extremely easy to access, which in turn has created a government, business, and personal society that is dependant on and successful from the networked information.

But this network also has its drawbacks. Besides enabling people who need to use the information for legitimate business or personal use to gain access, the network also-often unknowingly-enables unauthorized people to gain access to the information in one way or another, no matter what kind of network security they have implemented. Gaining access to a computer system that does not intentionally allow you access is called hacking.

Hacking causes many problems for networked information. Hackers can change and damage information. They can sell information. They can destroy information. They can destroy the computer systems in which the information is stored. It is estimated that hackers have caused between $145 million and $5 billion in damage to hacked systems annually in the United States (Skinner 1). The destruction or damaging of information is why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity.

But along with hacking comes the terms to prevent hacking. Some suggest creating strict Internet laws that could be used to make and prove hacking a crime. Some suggest that the government sniff-a type of eavesdropping of the Internet-Internet traffic and monitor such things as e-mail. But both of these actions to prevent hacking, to make it a crime, also infringe on the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet. This is another reason why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity, because if it is, it could affect a lot more people than just the hackers.

There are two primary sides to the hacking controversy: the hackers and the non-hackers. The hackers believe that what they are doing does not constitute a crime. One argument is that they provide a service to organizations by breaking into them. Specifically, by hackers breaking into an organization's network, they are showing the organization what their security holes are so that they can fix them.

Hackers also believe that hacking shouldn't be a crime because it is not the hacker's fault if the organization does not have a strong security system for their network. Hackers believe that if they can get into the network, it is the organization's fault, not theirs.

Hackers also believe that the Internet is free. They believe that the Internet does not belong to anyone. And for this reason, anything that is found on the Internet or on a network connected to the Internet is open to the public.

Hackers argue that if they can do it-break in to a network-they should be allowed to do it. Hackers take great pride in their computer skills and see breaking into a network as an intellectual accomplishment that few can do, so they should be awarded for it.

Non-hackers, whether they are government officials, businesses, or the general public, believe that hackers infringe on their privacy. They believe that hackers break in to their computers or computer networks and look at, change, destroy, and steal their private information.

Non-hackers believe that hackers are criminals. They are breaking into computer networks that contain private information. They liken it to a burglar breaking into a person's house. Even if that burglar does not steal or destroy anything in the house, it is still illegal for them to be there.

Some of the non-hackers believe that the Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers. But this is where the group of non-hackers becomes divided, because with more regulation of the Internet comes less freedom of the Internet, and, probably the most important result that divides this group, less privacy. With more regulation comes more policing, and with more policing less freedom and privacy.

Other non-hackers believe that hackers need to be caught and punished, but without taking away the freedom and privacy that the Internet offers now. They do not want the government or law enforcement to monitor the Internet. They only want better laws to prosecute the hackers after they are caught and better ways of catching the hackers without infringing on the general public's privacy.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

The following are the different ways the hackers justify their actions. Which one is not given in the passage or is irrelevant?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Today's information is highly interconnected by the Internet. With this interconnection of computer systems through the Internet comes computer crime. Breaking into computer systems, damaging information on computer systems, and stealing information on computer systems, more commonly known as hacking, has become extremely common on the Internet. As hacking becomes more frequent, and as some would say, more of a problem, should we consider hacking a criminal activity?

Information from across the world is stored on computer systems-most of which are connected, networked, to other computer systems through the Internet. In the ideal situation, this interconnection of information enables others from outside a specific computer network to access that specific computer network and its information. This has created a world in which information is extremely important and extremely easy to access, which in turn has created a government, business, and personal society that is dependant on and successful from the networked information.

But this network also has its drawbacks. Besides enabling people who need to use the information for legitimate business or personal use to gain access, the network also-often unknowingly-enables unauthorized people to gain access to the information in one way or another, no matter what kind of network security they have implemented. Gaining access to a computer system that does not intentionally allow you access is called hacking.

Hacking causes many problems for networked information. Hackers can change and damage information. They can sell information. They can destroy information. They can destroy the computer systems in which the information is stored. It is estimated that hackers have caused between $145 million and $5 billion in damage to hacked systems annually in the United States (Skinner 1). The destruction or damaging of information is why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity.

But along with hacking comes the terms to prevent hacking. Some suggest creating strict Internet laws that could be used to make and prove hacking a crime. Some suggest that the government sniff-a type of eavesdropping of the Internet-Internet traffic and monitor such things as e-mail. But both of these actions to prevent hacking, to make it a crime, also infringe on the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet. This is another reason why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity, because if it is, it could affect a lot more people than just the hackers.

There are two primary sides to the hacking controversy: the hackers and the non-hackers. The hackers believe that what they are doing does not constitute a crime. One argument is that they provide a service to organizations by breaking into them. Specifically, by hackers breaking into an organization's network, they are showing the organization what their security holes are so that they can fix them.

Hackers also believe that hacking shouldn't be a crime because it is not the hacker's fault if the organization does not have a strong security system for their network. Hackers believe that if they can get into the network, it is the organization's fault, not theirs.

Hackers also believe that the Internet is free. They believe that the Internet does not belong to anyone. And for this reason, anything that is found on the Internet or on a network connected to the Internet is open to the public.

Hackers argue that if they can do it-break in to a network-they should be allowed to do it. Hackers take great pride in their computer skills and see breaking into a network as an intellectual accomplishment that few can do, so they should be awarded for it.

Non-hackers, whether they are government officials, businesses, or the general public, believe that hackers infringe on their privacy. They believe that hackers break in to their computers or computer networks and look at, change, destroy, and steal their private information.

Non-hackers believe that hackers are criminals. They are breaking into computer networks that contain private information. They liken it to a burglar breaking into a person's house. Even if that burglar does not steal or destroy anything in the house, it is still illegal for them to be there.

Some of the non-hackers believe that the Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers. But this is where the group of non-hackers becomes divided, because with more regulation of the Internet comes less freedom of the Internet, and, probably the most important result that divides this group, less privacy. With more regulation comes more policing, and with more policing less freedom and privacy.

Other non-hackers believe that hackers need to be caught and punished, but without taking away the freedom and privacy that the Internet offers now. They do not want the government or law enforcement to monitor the Internet. They only want better laws to prosecute the hackers after they are caught and better ways of catching the hackers without infringing on the general public's privacy.

Why is Hitler analyzed in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

War brings out the best - and the worst - in human nature. Of course it does. There is no doubt about it. War is clearly a test of human nature. We have war heroes and we have war criminals and we also have war cowards. The heroes obviously bringing out the best in human nature and the criminals bringing out the worst.

It's really quite simple. All that we need to do is look at war mongrels. People such as Hitler need to be analyzed. Some of Hitler's ideas as a civil activist were, on a political level only, well thought of. Hitler's ideas of ethnic cleansing are what makes him a bad person and therefore brought out the worst in him. Hitler's followers had no idea of how powerful he would become and when he got all the power, he did not use it appropriately.

When talking about soldiers, bringing out the best would be running through a field and picking up a wounded soldier. This shows the best in human nature and that humans are caring and sensible people. When soldiers follow unlawful commands or commit mass genocide and brutal murders, that's when we see the worst in human nature. As of the end of World War II, obeying orders was no longer a defense for soldiers because they should know the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that war brought out the best in Robert Ross. He understood that thousands of lives were depending on him and he came through. He showed that humans can be compassionate, caring, and emotional people. He also died saving all the horses.

There are so many events that can bring out the best or worst in humans. It's not only war, but any time or high stress situation. I think that a time of civil disobedience would bring out the best and worst. I think we find though as humans, we have our own fine line of what's right and wrong and usually this line takes us in the right direction.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

According to the passage, why is it important to decide on how to control drug abuse?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, by a 61 to 39 percent margin. The act allows people who have been convicted of first or second time nonviolent simple drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The proposition allocates $120 million annually for five and one half years to pay for treatment services. Studies have suggested that up to thirty-six thousand nonviolent users could be affected each year and that the initiative could save the state and local governments as much as $200 million annually due to reduced prison operation costs. Proposition 36’s overwhelming victory suggests that Americans have become more accepting of the idea that drug addicts suffer from a disease that requires treatment, rather than a character fault that must be punished.

Deciding how to approach drug abuse is especially important given the increasing prevalence of drug use in the United States. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans aged twelve or older could be classified as current illicit drug users, meaning that they had used an illegal drug at least once during the previous month. Of those substances, marijuana was the most commonly used, with 12.1 million American adolescents and adults reporting having used it during the previous month. Current users of cocaine numbered 1.7 million, while 1.3 million had taken hallucinogens and 123,000 Americans had smoked or injected heroin.

Statistics indicate that drug use is especially high among young people. For example, 10.8 percent of Americans between the ages of twelve and seventeen were current illicit drug users, compared to 9.7 percent in 2000. For young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the increase was even sharper, rising from 15.9 percent to 18.8 percent. Overall, these two age groups were responsible for 51 percent of all illegal drug use and a disproportionate amount of inhalant and hallucinogenic abuse (76 percent and 86 percent, respectively).

However, not everyone who uses drugs becomes chemically dependent. Although the terms “substance abuse” and “chemical dependency” are often used interchangeably, there are differences between them. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Division, “substance abuse” is associated with social factors, such as the failure to meet important obligations, multiple legal problems, drug-related arguments, and the use of drugs in dangerous situations. On the other hand, “chemical dependency” is defined by physical factors, such as increased tolerance to drugs, withdrawal symptoms, an inability to control or decrease use, and continued use despite acknowledgement of the drugs’ dangerous effects.

The American view on chemical dependency has long been a dichotomy, wavering between the belief that the freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution means that they are responsible for their behavior, and the longstanding view that addiction is a disease of the body and mind. According to William L. White, in an article for Counselor, “The cultural perception of opiate addiction evolved over the 19th-century from that of a misfortune, to that of a vice, to proposals that such dependence should be viewed as a disease.” However, in the first half of the twentieth century, the idea that addiction was a sign of weakness reemerged. In the 1930s, most states considered, but then abandoned, antidrug education in schools out of fear that knowledge about drugs would lead to experimentation and addiction. By the middle of the century, according to Laurie LaChance in Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents, “any drug use was considered to be pathological.”

However, medical and scientific discoveries in the past several decades have lent support to the disease model of dependency. Researchers have found that the brains of addicts are different from those of people who are not dependent on drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In an article for the magazine Current Health, Melissa Abramovitz explains: “Addictive drugs change the brain. Most doctors now agree that addiction is a disease, not a weakness.” Drugs such as cocaine and heroin activate the brain’s reward system, causing the user to experience pleasure and euphoria. Repeated abuse of these substances can alter the brain’s chemistry, which makes people suffering from chemical dependency respond more intensely to drugs. In addition, increased levels of tolerance require that drug users take more of the substance in order to feel the same euphoria, which raises the likelihood of an overdose. Adolescents are most at risk because their brains undergo many changes during puberty. They are also more vulnerable to addiction because they are more likely than adults to take risks. Many youth are also genetically predisposed to addiction.

Not everyone has embraced this view of dependency. Among its doubters are Sally Satel, a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. Writing for the journal Public Interest, she contends that there have been no scientific studies linking drug exposure with changes in the brain. Satel also argues that the brain-disease model ignores the importance of the criminal justice system in ending drug addiction. She writes: “By downplaying the volitional dimension of addiction, the brain-disease model detracts from the great promise of strategies and therapies that rely on sanctions and rewards to shape self-control.”

Despite these qualms, many people support medically based drug treatment over jail. In the opinion of the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy: “Addiction to illegal drugs is a chronic illness. . . . Enhanced medical and public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful use of illegal drugs.” Thus, like other diseases, chemical dependency is often best treated with drugs, among them methadone, which reduces the craving for heroin, and naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin on the brain’s receptors and is effective in treating alcohol dependency. Because one element of chemical dependency is the inability to decrease drug use despite knowledge of its deleterious effects, counseling and behavioral modification are also critical facets of drug treatment.

The success of Proposition 36 may determine whether popular support for drug treatment continues. In March 2002, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) issued an evaluation of the effects of Proposition 36 in seven California counties. The alliance found that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act was “on the path to fulfill its promise to the voters to reduce the rates of drug addiction and crime by diverting offenders to drug treatment.” According to the report, 9,500 drug offenders had been referred to treatments in the first six months of the act’s implementation. The DPA believes that the number of qualifying individuals will gradually decrease as participants in programs defeat their drug addictions and get out from under the auspices of the criminal justice system.

Americans have debated the causes and treatments of chemical dependency for centuries. In Chemical Dependency: Opposing Viewpoints, the authors consider these arguments and related controversies in the following chapters: Is Chemical Dependency a Serious Problem? What Causes Chemical Dependency? What Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs Are Effective? Should Drug Laws Be Reformed? In their viewpoints, the authors provide a better understanding of a problem that affects millions of people.

All of the following are reasons why the modern viewer will be bored by watching old shows except:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The quickest way to appreciate the Sleeper Curve's cognitive training is to sit down and watch a few hours of hit programming from the late 70's on Nick at Nite or the SOAP net channel or on DVD. The modern viewer who watches a show like ''Dallas'' today will be bored by the content -- not just because the show is less salacious than today's soap operas (which it is by a small margin) but also because the show contains far less information in each scene, despite the fact that its soap-opera structure made it one of the most complicated narratives on television in its prime. With ''Dallas,'' the modern viewer doesn't have to think to make sense of what's going on, and not having to think is boring. Many recent hit shows -- ''24,'' ''Survivor,'' ''The Sopranos,'' ''Alias,'' ''Lost,'' ''The Simpsons,'' ''E.R.'' -- take the opposite approach, layering each scene with a thick network of affiliations. You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you're exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars. Finally, interactive games have trained a new generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet, and that gamer audience has now come to expect the same challenges from their television shows. In the end, the Sleeper Curve tells us something about the human mind. It may be drawn toward the sensational where content is concerned -- sex does sell, after all. But the mind also likes to be challenged; there's real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system.

In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves. What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind. Is it a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network? Is your on-screen character running around shooting everything in sight, or is she trying to solve problems and manage resources? If your kids want to watch reality TV, encourage them to watch ''Survivor'' over ''Fear Factor.'' If they want to watch a mystery show, encourage ''24'' over ''Law and Order.'' If they want to play a violent game, encourage “Grand Theft Auto” over “Quake”. Indeed, it might be just as helpful to have a rating system that used mental labor and not obscenity and violence as its classification scheme for the world of mass culture.

Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have nipple broaches explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwining, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force our kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

The artist’s work was very popular, but ______ rejected it as ______.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

In both the passages, the authors predominantly use

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

The sentence “to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration” can be written in which other form without changing its meaning?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, by a 61 to 39 percent margin. The act allows people who have been convicted of first or second time nonviolent simple drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The proposition allocates $120 million annually for five and one half years to pay for treatment services. Studies have suggested that up to thirty-six thousand nonviolent users could be affected each year and that the initiative could save the state and local governments as much as $200 million annually due to reduced prison operation costs. Proposition 36’s overwhelming victory suggests that Americans have become more accepting of the idea that drug addicts suffer from a disease that requires treatment, rather than a character fault that must be punished.

Deciding how to approach drug abuse is especially important given the increasing prevalence of drug use in the United States. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans aged twelve or older could be classified as current illicit drug users, meaning that they had used an illegal drug at least once during the previous month. Of those substances, marijuana was the most commonly used, with 12.1 million American adolescents and adults reporting having used it during the previous month. Current users of cocaine numbered 1.7 million, while 1.3 million had taken hallucinogens and 123,000 Americans had smoked or injected heroin.

Statistics indicate that drug use is especially high among young people. For example, 10.8 percent of Americans between the ages of twelve and seventeen were current illicit drug users, compared to 9.7 percent in 2000. For young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the increase was even sharper, rising from 15.9 percent to 18.8 percent. Overall, these two age groups were responsible for 51 percent of all illegal drug use and a disproportionate amount of inhalant and hallucinogenic abuse (76 percent and 86 percent, respectively).

However, not everyone who uses drugs becomes chemically dependent. Although the terms “substance abuse” and “chemical dependency” are often used interchangeably, there are differences between them. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Division, “substance abuse” is associated with social factors, such as the failure to meet important obligations, multiple legal problems, drug-related arguments, and the use of drugs in dangerous situations. On the other hand, “chemical dependency” is defined by physical factors, such as increased tolerance to drugs, withdrawal symptoms, an inability to control or decrease use, and continued use despite acknowledgement of the drugs’ dangerous effects.

The American view on chemical dependency has long been a dichotomy, wavering between the belief that the freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution means that they are responsible for their behavior, and the longstanding view that addiction is a disease of the body and mind. According to William L. White, in an article for Counselor, “The cultural perception of opiate addiction evolved over the 19th-century from that of a misfortune, to that of a vice, to proposals that such dependence should be viewed as a disease.” However, in the first half of the twentieth century, the idea that addiction was a sign of weakness reemerged. In the 1930s, most states considered, but then abandoned, antidrug education in schools out of fear that knowledge about drugs would lead to experimentation and addiction. By the middle of the century, according to Laurie LaChance in Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents, “any drug use was considered to be pathological.”

However, medical and scientific discoveries in the past several decades have lent support to the disease model of dependency. Researchers have found that the brains of addicts are different from those of people who are not dependent on drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In an article for the magazine Current Health, Melissa Abramovitz explains: “Addictive drugs change the brain. Most doctors now agree that addiction is a disease, not a weakness.” Drugs such as cocaine and heroin activate the brain’s reward system, causing the user to experience pleasure and euphoria. Repeated abuse of these substances can alter the brain’s chemistry, which makes people suffering from chemical dependency respond more intensely to drugs. In addition, increased levels of tolerance require that drug users take more of the substance in order to feel the same euphoria, which raises the likelihood of an overdose. Adolescents are most at risk because their brains undergo many changes during puberty. They are also more vulnerable to addiction because they are more likely than adults to take risks. Many youth are also genetically predisposed to addiction.

Not everyone has embraced this view of dependency. Among its doubters are Sally Satel, a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. Writing for the journal Public Interest, she contends that there have been no scientific studies linking drug exposure with changes in the brain. Satel also argues that the brain-disease model ignores the importance of the criminal justice system in ending drug addiction. She writes: “By downplaying the volitional dimension of addiction, the brain-disease model detracts from the great promise of strategies and therapies that rely on sanctions and rewards to shape self-control.”

Despite these qualms, many people support medically based drug treatment over jail. In the opinion of the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy: “Addiction to illegal drugs is a chronic illness. . . . Enhanced medical and public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful use of illegal drugs.” Thus, like other diseases, chemical dependency is often best treated with drugs, among them methadone, which reduces the craving for heroin, and naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin on the brain’s receptors and is effective in treating alcohol dependency. Because one element of chemical dependency is the inability to decrease drug use despite knowledge of its deleterious effects, counseling and behavioral modification are also critical facets of drug treatment.

The success of Proposition 36 may determine whether popular support for drug treatment continues. In March 2002, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) issued an evaluation of the effects of Proposition 36 in seven California counties. The alliance found that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act was “on the path to fulfill its promise to the voters to reduce the rates of drug addiction and crime by diverting offenders to drug treatment.” According to the report, 9,500 drug offenders had been referred to treatments in the first six months of the act’s implementation. The DPA believes that the number of qualifying individuals will gradually decrease as participants in programs defeat their drug addictions and get out from under the auspices of the criminal justice system.

Americans have debated the causes and treatments of chemical dependency for centuries. In Chemical Dependency: Opposing Viewpoints, the authors consider these arguments and related controversies in the following chapters: Is Chemical Dependency a Serious Problem? What Causes Chemical Dependency? What Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs Are Effective? Should Drug Laws Be Reformed? In their viewpoints, the authors provide a better understanding of a problem that affects millions of people.

Which of the following words is not similar in meaning to the word 'infringe' in the paragraph?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Today's information is highly interconnected by the Internet. With this interconnection of computer systems through the Internet comes computer crime. Breaking into computer systems, damaging information on computer systems, and stealing information on computer systems, more commonly known as hacking, has become extremely common on the Internet. As hacking becomes more frequent, and as some would say, more of a problem, should we consider hacking a criminal activity?

Information from across the world is stored on computer systems-most of which are connected, networked, to other computer systems through the Internet. In the ideal situation, this interconnection of information enables others from outside a specific computer network to access that specific computer network and its information. This has created a world in which information is extremely important and extremely easy to access, which in turn has created a government, business, and personal society that is dependant on and successful from the networked information.

But this network also has its drawbacks. Besides enabling people who need to use the information for legitimate business or personal use to gain access, the network also-often unknowingly-enables unauthorized people to gain access to the information in one way or another, no matter what kind of network security they have implemented. Gaining access to a computer system that does not intentionally allow you access is called hacking.

Hacking causes many problems for networked information. Hackers can change and damage information. They can sell information. They can destroy information. They can destroy the computer systems in which the information is stored. It is estimated that hackers have caused between $145 million and $5 billion in damage to hacked systems annually in the United States (Skinner 1). The destruction or damaging of information is why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity.

But along with hacking comes the terms to prevent hacking. Some suggest creating strict Internet laws that could be used to make and prove hacking a crime. Some suggest that the government sniff-a type of eavesdropping of the Internet-Internet traffic and monitor such things as e-mail. But both of these actions to prevent hacking, to make it a crime, also infringe on the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet. This is another reason why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity, because if it is, it could affect a lot more people than just the hackers.

There are two primary sides to the hacking controversy: the hackers and the non-hackers. The hackers believe that what they are doing does not constitute a crime. One argument is that they provide a service to organizations by breaking into them. Specifically, by hackers breaking into an organization's network, they are showing the organization what their security holes are so that they can fix them.

Hackers also believe that hacking shouldn't be a crime because it is not the hacker's fault if the organization does not have a strong security system for their network. Hackers believe that if they can get into the network, it is the organization's fault, not theirs.

Hackers also believe that the Internet is free. They believe that the Internet does not belong to anyone. And for this reason, anything that is found on the Internet or on a network connected to the Internet is open to the public.

Hackers argue that if they can do it-break in to a network-they should be allowed to do it. Hackers take great pride in their computer skills and see breaking into a network as an intellectual accomplishment that few can do, so they should be awarded for it.

Non-hackers, whether they are government officials, businesses, or the general public, believe that hackers infringe on their privacy. They believe that hackers break in to their computers or computer networks and look at, change, destroy, and steal their private information.

Non-hackers believe that hackers are criminals. They are breaking into computer networks that contain private information. They liken it to a burglar breaking into a person's house. Even if that burglar does not steal or destroy anything in the house, it is still illegal for them to be there.

Some of the non-hackers believe that the Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers. But this is where the group of non-hackers becomes divided, because with more regulation of the Internet comes less freedom of the Internet, and, probably the most important result that divides this group, less privacy. With more regulation comes more policing, and with more policing less freedom and privacy.

Other non-hackers believe that hackers need to be caught and punished, but without taking away the freedom and privacy that the Internet offers now. They do not want the government or law enforcement to monitor the Internet. They only want better laws to prosecute the hackers after they are caught and better ways of catching the hackers without infringing on the general public's privacy.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

War brings out the best - and the worst - in human nature. Of course it does. There is no doubt about it. War is clearly a test of human nature. We have war heroes and we have war criminals and we also have war cowards. The heroes obviously bringing out the best in human nature and the criminals bringing out the worst.

It's really quite simple. All that we need to do is look at war mongrels. People such as Hitler need to be analyzed. Some of Hitler's ideas as a civil activist were, on a political level only, well thought of. Hitler's ideas of ethnic cleansing are what makes him a bad person and therefore brought out the worst in him. Hitler's followers had no idea of how powerful he would become and when he got all the power, he did not use it appropriately.

When talking about soldiers, bringing out the best would be running through a field and picking up a wounded soldier. This shows the best in human nature and that humans are caring and sensible people. When soldiers follow unlawful commands or commit mass genocide and brutal murders, that's when we see the worst in human nature. As of the end of World War II, obeying orders was no longer a defense for soldiers because they should know the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that war brought out the best in Robert Ross. He understood that thousands of lives were depending on him and he came through. He showed that humans can be compassionate, caring, and emotional people. He also died saving all the horses.

There are so many events that can bring out the best or worst in humans. It's not only war, but any time or high stress situation. I think that a time of civil disobedience would bring out the best and worst. I think we find though as humans, we have our own fine line of what's right and wrong and usually this line takes us in the right direction.

Which of the following cites the reason why hacking should be considered a criminal activity?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Today's information is highly interconnected by the Internet. With this interconnection of computer systems through the Internet comes computer crime. Breaking into computer systems, damaging information on computer systems, and stealing information on computer systems, more commonly known as hacking, has become extremely common on the Internet. As hacking becomes more frequent, and as some would say, more of a problem, should we consider hacking a criminal activity?

Information from across the world is stored on computer systems-most of which are connected, networked, to other computer systems through the Internet. In the ideal situation, this interconnection of information enables others from outside a specific computer network to access that specific computer network and its information. This has created a world in which information is extremely important and extremely easy to access, which in turn has created a government, business, and personal society that is dependant on and successful from the networked information.

But this network also has its drawbacks. Besides enabling people who need to use the information for legitimate business or personal use to gain access, the network also-often unknowingly-enables unauthorized people to gain access to the information in one way or another, no matter what kind of network security they have implemented. Gaining access to a computer system that does not intentionally allow you access is called hacking.

Hacking causes many problems for networked information. Hackers can change and damage information. They can sell information. They can destroy information. They can destroy the computer systems in which the information is stored. It is estimated that hackers have caused between $145 million and $5 billion in damage to hacked systems annually in the United States (Skinner 1). The destruction or damaging of information is why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity.

But along with hacking comes the terms to prevent hacking. Some suggest creating strict Internet laws that could be used to make and prove hacking a crime. Some suggest that the government sniff-a type of eavesdropping of the Internet-Internet traffic and monitor such things as e-mail. But both of these actions to prevent hacking, to make it a crime, also infringe on the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet. This is another reason why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity, because if it is, it could affect a lot more people than just the hackers.

There are two primary sides to the hacking controversy: the hackers and the non-hackers. The hackers believe that what they are doing does not constitute a crime. One argument is that they provide a service to organizations by breaking into them. Specifically, by hackers breaking into an organization's network, they are showing the organization what their security holes are so that they can fix them.

Hackers also believe that hacking shouldn't be a crime because it is not the hacker's fault if the organization does not have a strong security system for their network. Hackers believe that if they can get into the network, it is the organization's fault, not theirs.

Hackers also believe that the Internet is free. They believe that the Internet does not belong to anyone. And for this reason, anything that is found on the Internet or on a network connected to the Internet is open to the public.

Hackers argue that if they can do it-break in to a network-they should be allowed to do it. Hackers take great pride in their computer skills and see breaking into a network as an intellectual accomplishment that few can do, so they should be awarded for it.

Non-hackers, whether they are government officials, businesses, or the general public, believe that hackers infringe on their privacy. They believe that hackers break in to their computers or computer networks and look at, change, destroy, and steal their private information.

Non-hackers believe that hackers are criminals. They are breaking into computer networks that contain private information. They liken it to a burglar breaking into a person's house. Even if that burglar does not steal or destroy anything in the house, it is still illegal for them to be there.

Some of the non-hackers believe that the Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers. But this is where the group of non-hackers becomes divided, because with more regulation of the Internet comes less freedom of the Internet, and, probably the most important result that divides this group, less privacy. With more regulation comes more policing, and with more policing less freedom and privacy.

Other non-hackers believe that hackers need to be caught and punished, but without taking away the freedom and privacy that the Internet offers now. They do not want the government or law enforcement to monitor the Internet. They only want better laws to prosecute the hackers after they are caught and better ways of catching the hackers without infringing on the general public's privacy.

Given below are the reasons why the author is 'for' the new culture in reality shows except:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The quickest way to appreciate the Sleeper Curve's cognitive training is to sit down and watch a few hours of hit programming from the late 70's on Nick at Nite or the SOAP net channel or on DVD. The modern viewer who watches a show like ''Dallas'' today will be bored by the content -- not just because the show is less salacious than today's soap operas (which it is by a small margin) but also because the show contains far less information in each scene, despite the fact that its soap-opera structure made it one of the most complicated narratives on television in its prime. With ''Dallas,'' the modern viewer doesn't have to think to make sense of what's going on, and not having to think is boring. Many recent hit shows -- ''24,'' ''Survivor,'' ''The Sopranos,'' ''Alias,'' ''Lost,'' ''The Simpsons,'' ''E.R.'' -- take the opposite approach, layering each scene with a thick network of affiliations. You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you're exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars. Finally, interactive games have trained a new generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet, and that gamer audience has now come to expect the same challenges from their television shows. In the end, the Sleeper Curve tells us something about the human mind. It may be drawn toward the sensational where content is concerned -- sex does sell, after all. But the mind also likes to be challenged; there's real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system.

In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves. What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind. Is it a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network? Is your on-screen character running around shooting everything in sight, or is she trying to solve problems and manage resources? If your kids want to watch reality TV, encourage them to watch ''Survivor'' over ''Fear Factor.'' If they want to watch a mystery show, encourage ''24'' over ''Law and Order.'' If they want to play a violent game, encourage “Grand Theft Auto” over “Quake”. Indeed, it might be just as helpful to have a rating system that used mental labor and not obscenity and violence as its classification scheme for the world of mass culture.

Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have nipple broaches explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwining, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force our kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

“Revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing”. What does the author mean by 'nuances and shadings'?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The quickest way to appreciate the Sleeper Curve's cognitive training is to sit down and watch a few hours of hit programming from the late 70's on Nick at Nite or the SOAP net channel or on DVD. The modern viewer who watches a show like ''Dallas'' today will be bored by the content -- not just because the show is less salacious than today's soap operas (which it is by a small margin) but also because the show contains far less information in each scene, despite the fact that its soap-opera structure made it one of the most complicated narratives on television in its prime. With ''Dallas,'' the modern viewer doesn't have to think to make sense of what's going on, and not having to think is boring. Many recent hit shows -- ''24,'' ''Survivor,'' ''The Sopranos,'' ''Alias,'' ''Lost,'' ''The Simpsons,'' ''E.R.'' -- take the opposite approach, layering each scene with a thick network of affiliations. You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you're exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars. Finally, interactive games have trained a new generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet, and that gamer audience has now come to expect the same challenges from their television shows. In the end, the Sleeper Curve tells us something about the human mind. It may be drawn toward the sensational where content is concerned -- sex does sell, after all. But the mind also likes to be challenged; there's real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system.

In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves. What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind. Is it a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network? Is your on-screen character running around shooting everything in sight, or is she trying to solve problems and manage resources? If your kids want to watch reality TV, encourage them to watch ''Survivor'' over ''Fear Factor.'' If they want to watch a mystery show, encourage ''24'' over ''Law and Order.'' If they want to play a violent game, encourage “Grand Theft Auto” over “Quake”. Indeed, it might be just as helpful to have a rating system that used mental labor and not obscenity and violence as its classification scheme for the world of mass culture.

Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have nipple broaches explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwining, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force our kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

“Generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet”. What does the term 'think on their feet' mean?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The quickest way to appreciate the Sleeper Curve's cognitive training is to sit down and watch a few hours of hit programming from the late 70's on Nick at Nite or the SOAP net channel or on DVD. The modern viewer who watches a show like ''Dallas'' today will be bored by the content -- not just because the show is less salacious than today's soap operas (which it is by a small margin) but also because the show contains far less information in each scene, despite the fact that its soap-opera structure made it one of the most complicated narratives on television in its prime. With ''Dallas,'' the modern viewer doesn't have to think to make sense of what's going on, and not having to think is boring. Many recent hit shows -- ''24,'' ''Survivor,'' ''The Sopranos,'' ''Alias,'' ''Lost,'' ''The Simpsons,'' ''E.R.'' -- take the opposite approach, layering each scene with a thick network of affiliations. You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you're exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars. Finally, interactive games have trained a new generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet, and that gamer audience has now come to expect the same challenges from their television shows. In the end, the Sleeper Curve tells us something about the human mind. It may be drawn toward the sensational where content is concerned -- sex does sell, after all. But the mind also likes to be challenged; there's real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system.

In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves. What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind. Is it a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network? Is your on-screen character running around shooting everything in sight, or is she trying to solve problems and manage resources? If your kids want to watch reality TV, encourage them to watch ''Survivor'' over ''Fear Factor.'' If they want to watch a mystery show, encourage ''24'' over ''Law and Order.'' If they want to play a violent game, encourage “Grand Theft Auto” over “Quake”. Indeed, it might be just as helpful to have a rating system that used mental labor and not obscenity and violence as its classification scheme for the world of mass culture.

Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have nipple broaches explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwining, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force our kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

What can be the best title for the above passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, by a 61 to 39 percent margin. The act allows people who have been convicted of first or second time nonviolent simple drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The proposition allocates $120 million annually for five and one half years to pay for treatment services. Studies have suggested that up to thirty-six thousand nonviolent users could be affected each year and that the initiative could save the state and local governments as much as $200 million annually due to reduced prison operation costs. Proposition 36’s overwhelming victory suggests that Americans have become more accepting of the idea that drug addicts suffer from a disease that requires treatment, rather than a character fault that must be punished.

Deciding how to approach drug abuse is especially important given the increasing prevalence of drug use in the United States. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans aged twelve or older could be classified as current illicit drug users, meaning that they had used an illegal drug at least once during the previous month. Of those substances, marijuana was the most commonly used, with 12.1 million American adolescents and adults reporting having used it during the previous month. Current users of cocaine numbered 1.7 million, while 1.3 million had taken hallucinogens and 123,000 Americans had smoked or injected heroin.

Statistics indicate that drug use is especially high among young people. For example, 10.8 percent of Americans between the ages of twelve and seventeen were current illicit drug users, compared to 9.7 percent in 2000. For young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the increase was even sharper, rising from 15.9 percent to 18.8 percent. Overall, these two age groups were responsible for 51 percent of all illegal drug use and a disproportionate amount of inhalant and hallucinogenic abuse (76 percent and 86 percent, respectively).

However, not everyone who uses drugs becomes chemically dependent. Although the terms “substance abuse” and “chemical dependency” are often used interchangeably, there are differences between them. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Division, “substance abuse” is associated with social factors, such as the failure to meet important obligations, multiple legal problems, drug-related arguments, and the use of drugs in dangerous situations. On the other hand, “chemical dependency” is defined by physical factors, such as increased tolerance to drugs, withdrawal symptoms, an inability to control or decrease use, and continued use despite acknowledgement of the drugs’ dangerous effects.

The American view on chemical dependency has long been a dichotomy, wavering between the belief that the freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution means that they are responsible for their behavior, and the longstanding view that addiction is a disease of the body and mind. According to William L. White, in an article for Counselor, “The cultural perception of opiate addiction evolved over the 19th-century from that of a misfortune, to that of a vice, to proposals that such dependence should be viewed as a disease.” However, in the first half of the twentieth century, the idea that addiction was a sign of weakness reemerged. In the 1930s, most states considered, but then abandoned, antidrug education in schools out of fear that knowledge about drugs would lead to experimentation and addiction. By the middle of the century, according to Laurie LaChance in Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents, “any drug use was considered to be pathological.”

However, medical and scientific discoveries in the past several decades have lent support to the disease model of dependency. Researchers have found that the brains of addicts are different from those of people who are not dependent on drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In an article for the magazine Current Health, Melissa Abramovitz explains: “Addictive drugs change the brain. Most doctors now agree that addiction is a disease, not a weakness.” Drugs such as cocaine and heroin activate the brain’s reward system, causing the user to experience pleasure and euphoria. Repeated abuse of these substances can alter the brain’s chemistry, which makes people suffering from chemical dependency respond more intensely to drugs. In addition, increased levels of tolerance require that drug users take more of the substance in order to feel the same euphoria, which raises the likelihood of an overdose. Adolescents are most at risk because their brains undergo many changes during puberty. They are also more vulnerable to addiction because they are more likely than adults to take risks. Many youth are also genetically predisposed to addiction.

Not everyone has embraced this view of dependency. Among its doubters are Sally Satel, a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. Writing for the journal Public Interest, she contends that there have been no scientific studies linking drug exposure with changes in the brain. Satel also argues that the brain-disease model ignores the importance of the criminal justice system in ending drug addiction. She writes: “By downplaying the volitional dimension of addiction, the brain-disease model detracts from the great promise of strategies and therapies that rely on sanctions and rewards to shape self-control.”

Despite these qualms, many people support medically based drug treatment over jail. In the opinion of the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy: “Addiction to illegal drugs is a chronic illness. . . . Enhanced medical and public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful use of illegal drugs.” Thus, like other diseases, chemical dependency is often best treated with drugs, among them methadone, which reduces the craving for heroin, and naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin on the brain’s receptors and is effective in treating alcohol dependency. Because one element of chemical dependency is the inability to decrease drug use despite knowledge of its deleterious effects, counseling and behavioral modification are also critical facets of drug treatment.

The success of Proposition 36 may determine whether popular support for drug treatment continues. In March 2002, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) issued an evaluation of the effects of Proposition 36 in seven California counties. The alliance found that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act was “on the path to fulfill its promise to the voters to reduce the rates of drug addiction and crime by diverting offenders to drug treatment.” According to the report, 9,500 drug offenders had been referred to treatments in the first six months of the act’s implementation. The DPA believes that the number of qualifying individuals will gradually decrease as participants in programs defeat their drug addictions and get out from under the auspices of the criminal justice system.

Americans have debated the causes and treatments of chemical dependency for centuries. In Chemical Dependency: Opposing Viewpoints, the authors consider these arguments and related controversies in the following chapters: Is Chemical Dependency a Serious Problem? What Causes Chemical Dependency? What Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs Are Effective? Should Drug Laws Be Reformed? In their viewpoints, the authors provide a better understanding of a problem that affects millions of people.

All of the following are characteristics of substance abuse except:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, by a 61 to 39 percent margin. The act allows people who have been convicted of first or second time nonviolent simple drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The proposition allocates $120 million annually for five and one half years to pay for treatment services. Studies have suggested that up to thirty-six thousand nonviolent users could be affected each year and that the initiative could save the state and local governments as much as $200 million annually due to reduced prison operation costs. Proposition 36’s overwhelming victory suggests that Americans have become more accepting of the idea that drug addicts suffer from a disease that requires treatment, rather than a character fault that must be punished.

Deciding how to approach drug abuse is especially important given the increasing prevalence of drug use in the United States. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans aged twelve or older could be classified as current illicit drug users, meaning that they had used an illegal drug at least once during the previous month. Of those substances, marijuana was the most commonly used, with 12.1 million American adolescents and adults reporting having used it during the previous month. Current users of cocaine numbered 1.7 million, while 1.3 million had taken hallucinogens and 123,000 Americans had smoked or injected heroin.

Statistics indicate that drug use is especially high among young people. For example, 10.8 percent of Americans between the ages of twelve and seventeen were current illicit drug users, compared to 9.7 percent in 2000. For young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the increase was even sharper, rising from 15.9 percent to 18.8 percent. Overall, these two age groups were responsible for 51 percent of all illegal drug use and a disproportionate amount of inhalant and hallucinogenic abuse (76 percent and 86 percent, respectively).

However, not everyone who uses drugs becomes chemically dependent. Although the terms “substance abuse” and “chemical dependency” are often used interchangeably, there are differences between them. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Division, “substance abuse” is associated with social factors, such as the failure to meet important obligations, multiple legal problems, drug-related arguments, and the use of drugs in dangerous situations. On the other hand, “chemical dependency” is defined by physical factors, such as increased tolerance to drugs, withdrawal symptoms, an inability to control or decrease use, and continued use despite acknowledgement of the drugs’ dangerous effects.

The American view on chemical dependency has long been a dichotomy, wavering between the belief that the freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution means that they are responsible for their behavior, and the longstanding view that addiction is a disease of the body and mind. According to William L. White, in an article for Counselor, “The cultural perception of opiate addiction evolved over the 19th-century from that of a misfortune, to that of a vice, to proposals that such dependence should be viewed as a disease.” However, in the first half of the twentieth century, the idea that addiction was a sign of weakness reemerged. In the 1930s, most states considered, but then abandoned, antidrug education in schools out of fear that knowledge about drugs would lead to experimentation and addiction. By the middle of the century, according to Laurie LaChance in Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents, “any drug use was considered to be pathological.”

However, medical and scientific discoveries in the past several decades have lent support to the disease model of dependency. Researchers have found that the brains of addicts are different from those of people who are not dependent on drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In an article for the magazine Current Health, Melissa Abramovitz explains: “Addictive drugs change the brain. Most doctors now agree that addiction is a disease, not a weakness.” Drugs such as cocaine and heroin activate the brain’s reward system, causing the user to experience pleasure and euphoria. Repeated abuse of these substances can alter the brain’s chemistry, which makes people suffering from chemical dependency respond more intensely to drugs. In addition, increased levels of tolerance require that drug users take more of the substance in order to feel the same euphoria, which raises the likelihood of an overdose. Adolescents are most at risk because their brains undergo many changes during puberty. They are also more vulnerable to addiction because they are more likely than adults to take risks. Many youth are also genetically predisposed to addiction.

Not everyone has embraced this view of dependency. Among its doubters are Sally Satel, a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. Writing for the journal Public Interest, she contends that there have been no scientific studies linking drug exposure with changes in the brain. Satel also argues that the brain-disease model ignores the importance of the criminal justice system in ending drug addiction. She writes: “By downplaying the volitional dimension of addiction, the brain-disease model detracts from the great promise of strategies and therapies that rely on sanctions and rewards to shape self-control.”

Despite these qualms, many people support medically based drug treatment over jail. In the opinion of the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy: “Addiction to illegal drugs is a chronic illness. . . . Enhanced medical and public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful use of illegal drugs.” Thus, like other diseases, chemical dependency is often best treated with drugs, among them methadone, which reduces the craving for heroin, and naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin on the brain’s receptors and is effective in treating alcohol dependency. Because one element of chemical dependency is the inability to decrease drug use despite knowledge of its deleterious effects, counseling and behavioral modification are also critical facets of drug treatment.

The success of Proposition 36 may determine whether popular support for drug treatment continues. In March 2002, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) issued an evaluation of the effects of Proposition 36 in seven California counties. The alliance found that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act was “on the path to fulfill its promise to the voters to reduce the rates of drug addiction and crime by diverting offenders to drug treatment.” According to the report, 9,500 drug offenders had been referred to treatments in the first six months of the act’s implementation. The DPA believes that the number of qualifying individuals will gradually decrease as participants in programs defeat their drug addictions and get out from under the auspices of the criminal justice system.

Americans have debated the causes and treatments of chemical dependency for centuries. In Chemical Dependency: Opposing Viewpoints, the authors consider these arguments and related controversies in the following chapters: Is Chemical Dependency a Serious Problem? What Causes Chemical Dependency? What Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs Are Effective? Should Drug Laws Be Reformed? In their viewpoints, the authors provide a better understanding of a problem that affects millions of people.

Why are the different means to prevent hacking not feasible?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Today's information is highly interconnected by the Internet. With this interconnection of computer systems through the Internet comes computer crime. Breaking into computer systems, damaging information on computer systems, and stealing information on computer systems, more commonly known as hacking, has become extremely common on the Internet. As hacking becomes more frequent, and as some would say, more of a problem, should we consider hacking a criminal activity?

Information from across the world is stored on computer systems-most of which are connected, networked, to other computer systems through the Internet. In the ideal situation, this interconnection of information enables others from outside a specific computer network to access that specific computer network and its information. This has created a world in which information is extremely important and extremely easy to access, which in turn has created a government, business, and personal society that is dependant on and successful from the networked information.

But this network also has its drawbacks. Besides enabling people who need to use the information for legitimate business or personal use to gain access, the network also-often unknowingly-enables unauthorized people to gain access to the information in one way or another, no matter what kind of network security they have implemented. Gaining access to a computer system that does not intentionally allow you access is called hacking.

Hacking causes many problems for networked information. Hackers can change and damage information. They can sell information. They can destroy information. They can destroy the computer systems in which the information is stored. It is estimated that hackers have caused between $145 million and $5 billion in damage to hacked systems annually in the United States (Skinner 1). The destruction or damaging of information is why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity.

But along with hacking comes the terms to prevent hacking. Some suggest creating strict Internet laws that could be used to make and prove hacking a crime. Some suggest that the government sniff-a type of eavesdropping of the Internet-Internet traffic and monitor such things as e-mail. But both of these actions to prevent hacking, to make it a crime, also infringe on the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet. This is another reason why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity, because if it is, it could affect a lot more people than just the hackers.

There are two primary sides to the hacking controversy: the hackers and the non-hackers. The hackers believe that what they are doing does not constitute a crime. One argument is that they provide a service to organizations by breaking into them. Specifically, by hackers breaking into an organization's network, they are showing the organization what their security holes are so that they can fix them.

Hackers also believe that hacking shouldn't be a crime because it is not the hacker's fault if the organization does not have a strong security system for their network. Hackers believe that if they can get into the network, it is the organization's fault, not theirs.

Hackers also believe that the Internet is free. They believe that the Internet does not belong to anyone. And for this reason, anything that is found on the Internet or on a network connected to the Internet is open to the public.

Hackers argue that if they can do it-break in to a network-they should be allowed to do it. Hackers take great pride in their computer skills and see breaking into a network as an intellectual accomplishment that few can do, so they should be awarded for it.

Non-hackers, whether they are government officials, businesses, or the general public, believe that hackers infringe on their privacy. They believe that hackers break in to their computers or computer networks and look at, change, destroy, and steal their private information.

Non-hackers believe that hackers are criminals. They are breaking into computer networks that contain private information. They liken it to a burglar breaking into a person's house. Even if that burglar does not steal or destroy anything in the house, it is still illegal for them to be there.

Some of the non-hackers believe that the Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers. But this is where the group of non-hackers becomes divided, because with more regulation of the Internet comes less freedom of the Internet, and, probably the most important result that divides this group, less privacy. With more regulation comes more policing, and with more policing less freedom and privacy.

Other non-hackers believe that hackers need to be caught and punished, but without taking away the freedom and privacy that the Internet offers now. They do not want the government or law enforcement to monitor the Internet. They only want better laws to prosecute the hackers after they are caught and better ways of catching the hackers without infringing on the general public's privacy.

In Passage A, most people thought that Keiko would

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

According to the passage, why are adolescents more at risk while taking drugs?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, by a 61 to 39 percent margin. The act allows people who have been convicted of first or second time nonviolent simple drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The proposition allocates $120 million annually for five and one half years to pay for treatment services. Studies have suggested that up to thirty-six thousand nonviolent users could be affected each year and that the initiative could save the state and local governments as much as $200 million annually due to reduced prison operation costs. Proposition 36’s overwhelming victory suggests that Americans have become more accepting of the idea that drug addicts suffer from a disease that requires treatment, rather than a character fault that must be punished.

Deciding how to approach drug abuse is especially important given the increasing prevalence of drug use in the United States. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans aged twelve or older could be classified as current illicit drug users, meaning that they had used an illegal drug at least once during the previous month. Of those substances, marijuana was the most commonly used, with 12.1 million American adolescents and adults reporting having used it during the previous month. Current users of cocaine numbered 1.7 million, while 1.3 million had taken hallucinogens and 123,000 Americans had smoked or injected heroin.

Statistics indicate that drug use is especially high among young people. For example, 10.8 percent of Americans between the ages of twelve and seventeen were current illicit drug users, compared to 9.7 percent in 2000. For young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the increase was even sharper, rising from 15.9 percent to 18.8 percent. Overall, these two age groups were responsible for 51 percent of all illegal drug use and a disproportionate amount of inhalant and hallucinogenic abuse (76 percent and 86 percent, respectively).

However, not everyone who uses drugs becomes chemically dependent. Although the terms “substance abuse” and “chemical dependency” are often used interchangeably, there are differences between them. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Division, “substance abuse” is associated with social factors, such as the failure to meet important obligations, multiple legal problems, drug-related arguments, and the use of drugs in dangerous situations. On the other hand, “chemical dependency” is defined by physical factors, such as increased tolerance to drugs, withdrawal symptoms, an inability to control or decrease use, and continued use despite acknowledgement of the drugs’ dangerous effects.

The American view on chemical dependency has long been a dichotomy, wavering between the belief that the freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution means that they are responsible for their behavior, and the longstanding view that addiction is a disease of the body and mind. According to William L. White, in an article for Counselor, “The cultural perception of opiate addiction evolved over the 19th-century from that of a misfortune, to that of a vice, to proposals that such dependence should be viewed as a disease.” However, in the first half of the twentieth century, the idea that addiction was a sign of weakness reemerged. In the 1930s, most states considered, but then abandoned, antidrug education in schools out of fear that knowledge about drugs would lead to experimentation and addiction. By the middle of the century, according to Laurie LaChance in Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents, “any drug use was considered to be pathological.”

However, medical and scientific discoveries in the past several decades have lent support to the disease model of dependency. Researchers have found that the brains of addicts are different from those of people who are not dependent on drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In an article for the magazine Current Health, Melissa Abramovitz explains: “Addictive drugs change the brain. Most doctors now agree that addiction is a disease, not a weakness.” Drugs such as cocaine and heroin activate the brain’s reward system, causing the user to experience pleasure and euphoria. Repeated abuse of these substances can alter the brain’s chemistry, which makes people suffering from chemical dependency respond more intensely to drugs. In addition, increased levels of tolerance require that drug users take more of the substance in order to feel the same euphoria, which raises the likelihood of an overdose. Adolescents are most at risk because their brains undergo many changes during puberty. They are also more vulnerable to addiction because they are more likely than adults to take risks. Many youth are also genetically predisposed to addiction.

Not everyone has embraced this view of dependency. Among its doubters are Sally Satel, a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. Writing for the journal Public Interest, she contends that there have been no scientific studies linking drug exposure with changes in the brain. Satel also argues that the brain-disease model ignores the importance of the criminal justice system in ending drug addiction. She writes: “By downplaying the volitional dimension of addiction, the brain-disease model detracts from the great promise of strategies and therapies that rely on sanctions and rewards to shape self-control.”

Despite these qualms, many people support medically based drug treatment over jail. In the opinion of the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy: “Addiction to illegal drugs is a chronic illness. . . . Enhanced medical and public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful use of illegal drugs.” Thus, like other diseases, chemical dependency is often best treated with drugs, among them methadone, which reduces the craving for heroin, and naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin on the brain’s receptors and is effective in treating alcohol dependency. Because one element of chemical dependency is the inability to decrease drug use despite knowledge of its deleterious effects, counseling and behavioral modification are also critical facets of drug treatment.

The success of Proposition 36 may determine whether popular support for drug treatment continues. In March 2002, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) issued an evaluation of the effects of Proposition 36 in seven California counties. The alliance found that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act was “on the path to fulfill its promise to the voters to reduce the rates of drug addiction and crime by diverting offenders to drug treatment.” According to the report, 9,500 drug offenders had been referred to treatments in the first six months of the act’s implementation. The DPA believes that the number of qualifying individuals will gradually decrease as participants in programs defeat their drug addictions and get out from under the auspices of the criminal justice system.

Americans have debated the causes and treatments of chemical dependency for centuries. In Chemical Dependency: Opposing Viewpoints, the authors consider these arguments and related controversies in the following chapters: Is Chemical Dependency a Serious Problem? What Causes Chemical Dependency? What Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs Are Effective? Should Drug Laws Be Reformed? In their viewpoints, the authors provide a better understanding of a problem that affects millions of people.

Why does, according to the author, the sleeper curve exist?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The quickest way to appreciate the Sleeper Curve's cognitive training is to sit down and watch a few hours of hit programming from the late 70's on Nick at Nite or the SOAP net channel or on DVD. The modern viewer who watches a show like ''Dallas'' today will be bored by the content -- not just because the show is less salacious than today's soap operas (which it is by a small margin) but also because the show contains far less information in each scene, despite the fact that its soap-opera structure made it one of the most complicated narratives on television in its prime. With ''Dallas,'' the modern viewer doesn't have to think to make sense of what's going on, and not having to think is boring. Many recent hit shows -- ''24,'' ''Survivor,'' ''The Sopranos,'' ''Alias,'' ''Lost,'' ''The Simpsons,'' ''E.R.'' -- take the opposite approach, layering each scene with a thick network of affiliations. You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you're exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars. Finally, interactive games have trained a new generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet, and that gamer audience has now come to expect the same challenges from their television shows. In the end, the Sleeper Curve tells us something about the human mind. It may be drawn toward the sensational where content is concerned -- sex does sell, after all. But the mind also likes to be challenged; there's real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system.

In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves. What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind. Is it a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network? Is your on-screen character running around shooting everything in sight, or is she trying to solve problems and manage resources? If your kids want to watch reality TV, encourage them to watch ''Survivor'' over ''Fear Factor.'' If they want to watch a mystery show, encourage ''24'' over ''Law and Order.'' If they want to play a violent game, encourage “Grand Theft Auto” over “Quake”. Indeed, it might be just as helpful to have a rating system that used mental labor and not obscenity and violence as its classification scheme for the world of mass culture.

Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have nipple broaches explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwining, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force our kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

According to the passage, what is the meaning of the word “qualms” in para 8?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In November 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, by a 61 to 39 percent margin. The act allows people who have been convicted of first or second time nonviolent simple drug possession the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The proposition allocates $120 million annually for five and one half years to pay for treatment services. Studies have suggested that up to thirty-six thousand nonviolent users could be affected each year and that the initiative could save the state and local governments as much as $200 million annually due to reduced prison operation costs. Proposition 36’s overwhelming victory suggests that Americans have become more accepting of the idea that drug addicts suffer from a disease that requires treatment, rather than a character fault that must be punished.

Deciding how to approach drug abuse is especially important given the increasing prevalence of drug use in the United States. According to the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million Americans aged twelve or older could be classified as current illicit drug users, meaning that they had used an illegal drug at least once during the previous month. Of those substances, marijuana was the most commonly used, with 12.1 million American adolescents and adults reporting having used it during the previous month. Current users of cocaine numbered 1.7 million, while 1.3 million had taken hallucinogens and 123,000 Americans had smoked or injected heroin.

Statistics indicate that drug use is especially high among young people. For example, 10.8 percent of Americans between the ages of twelve and seventeen were current illicit drug users, compared to 9.7 percent in 2000. For young adults between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the increase was even sharper, rising from 15.9 percent to 18.8 percent. Overall, these two age groups were responsible for 51 percent of all illegal drug use and a disproportionate amount of inhalant and hallucinogenic abuse (76 percent and 86 percent, respectively).

However, not everyone who uses drugs becomes chemically dependent. Although the terms “substance abuse” and “chemical dependency” are often used interchangeably, there are differences between them. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Text Revision, published by the American Psychiatric Division, “substance abuse” is associated with social factors, such as the failure to meet important obligations, multiple legal problems, drug-related arguments, and the use of drugs in dangerous situations. On the other hand, “chemical dependency” is defined by physical factors, such as increased tolerance to drugs, withdrawal symptoms, an inability to control or decrease use, and continued use despite acknowledgement of the drugs’ dangerous effects.

The American view on chemical dependency has long been a dichotomy, wavering between the belief that the freedoms granted to Americans by the Constitution means that they are responsible for their behavior, and the longstanding view that addiction is a disease of the body and mind. According to William L. White, in an article for Counselor, “The cultural perception of opiate addiction evolved over the 19th-century from that of a misfortune, to that of a vice, to proposals that such dependence should be viewed as a disease.” However, in the first half of the twentieth century, the idea that addiction was a sign of weakness reemerged. In the 1930s, most states considered, but then abandoned, antidrug education in schools out of fear that knowledge about drugs would lead to experimentation and addiction. By the middle of the century, according to Laurie LaChance in Alcohol and Drug Use Among Adolescents, “any drug use was considered to be pathological.”

However, medical and scientific discoveries in the past several decades have lent support to the disease model of dependency. Researchers have found that the brains of addicts are different from those of people who are not dependent on drugs, tobacco, or alcohol. In an article for the magazine Current Health, Melissa Abramovitz explains: “Addictive drugs change the brain. Most doctors now agree that addiction is a disease, not a weakness.” Drugs such as cocaine and heroin activate the brain’s reward system, causing the user to experience pleasure and euphoria. Repeated abuse of these substances can alter the brain’s chemistry, which makes people suffering from chemical dependency respond more intensely to drugs. In addition, increased levels of tolerance require that drug users take more of the substance in order to feel the same euphoria, which raises the likelihood of an overdose. Adolescents are most at risk because their brains undergo many changes during puberty. They are also more vulnerable to addiction because they are more likely than adults to take risks. Many youth are also genetically predisposed to addiction.

Not everyone has embraced this view of dependency. Among its doubters are Sally Satel, a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. Writing for the journal Public Interest, she contends that there have been no scientific studies linking drug exposure with changes in the brain. Satel also argues that the brain-disease model ignores the importance of the criminal justice system in ending drug addiction. She writes: “By downplaying the volitional dimension of addiction, the brain-disease model detracts from the great promise of strategies and therapies that rely on sanctions and rewards to shape self-control.”

Despite these qualms, many people support medically based drug treatment over jail. In the opinion of the Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy: “Addiction to illegal drugs is a chronic illness. . . . Enhanced medical and public health approaches are the most effective method of reducing harmful use of illegal drugs.” Thus, like other diseases, chemical dependency is often best treated with drugs, among them methadone, which reduces the craving for heroin, and naltrexone, which blocks the effects of heroin on the brain’s receptors and is effective in treating alcohol dependency. Because one element of chemical dependency is the inability to decrease drug use despite knowledge of its deleterious effects, counseling and behavioral modification are also critical facets of drug treatment.

The success of Proposition 36 may determine whether popular support for drug treatment continues. In March 2002, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) issued an evaluation of the effects of Proposition 36 in seven California counties. The alliance found that the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act was “on the path to fulfill its promise to the voters to reduce the rates of drug addiction and crime by diverting offenders to drug treatment.” According to the report, 9,500 drug offenders had been referred to treatments in the first six months of the act’s implementation. The DPA believes that the number of qualifying individuals will gradually decrease as participants in programs defeat their drug addictions and get out from under the auspices of the criminal justice system.

Americans have debated the causes and treatments of chemical dependency for centuries. In Chemical Dependency: Opposing Viewpoints, the authors consider these arguments and related controversies in the following chapters: Is Chemical Dependency a Serious Problem? What Causes Chemical Dependency? What Drug Treatment and Prevention Programs Are Effective? Should Drug Laws Be Reformed? In their viewpoints, the authors provide a better understanding of a problem that affects millions of people.

Why is the example of soldiers taken in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

War brings out the best - and the worst - in human nature. Of course it does. There is no doubt about it. War is clearly a test of human nature. We have war heroes and we have war criminals and we also have war cowards. The heroes obviously bringing out the best in human nature and the criminals bringing out the worst.

It's really quite simple. All that we need to do is look at war mongrels. People such as Hitler need to be analyzed. Some of Hitler's ideas as a civil activist were, on a political level only, well thought of. Hitler's ideas of ethnic cleansing are what makes him a bad person and therefore brought out the worst in him. Hitler's followers had no idea of how powerful he would become and when he got all the power, he did not use it appropriately.

When talking about soldiers, bringing out the best would be running through a field and picking up a wounded soldier. This shows the best in human nature and that humans are caring and sensible people. When soldiers follow unlawful commands or commit mass genocide and brutal murders, that's when we see the worst in human nature. As of the end of World War II, obeying orders was no longer a defense for soldiers because they should know the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that war brought out the best in Robert Ross. He understood that thousands of lives were depending on him and he came through. He showed that humans can be compassionate, caring, and emotional people. He also died saving all the horses.

There are so many events that can bring out the best or worst in humans. It's not only war, but any time or high stress situation. I think that a time of civil disobedience would bring out the best and worst. I think we find though as humans, we have our own fine line of what's right and wrong and usually this line takes us in the right direction.

Being a correspondent for the local newspaper is my ___, but writing poetry in my free time is my ___.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

What will be the best heading for the passage?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

The quickest way to appreciate the Sleeper Curve's cognitive training is to sit down and watch a few hours of hit programming from the late 70's on Nick at Nite or the SOAP net channel or on DVD. The modern viewer who watches a show like ''Dallas'' today will be bored by the content -- not just because the show is less salacious than today's soap operas (which it is by a small margin) but also because the show contains far less information in each scene, despite the fact that its soap-opera structure made it one of the most complicated narratives on television in its prime. With ''Dallas,'' the modern viewer doesn't have to think to make sense of what's going on, and not having to think is boring. Many recent hit shows -- ''24,'' ''Survivor,'' ''The Sopranos,'' ''Alias,'' ''Lost,'' ''The Simpsons,'' ''E.R.'' -- take the opposite approach, layering each scene with a thick network of affiliations. You have to focus to follow the plot, and in focusing you're exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, that fill in missing information, that connect multiple narrative threads.

Of course, the entertainment industry isn't increasing the cognitive complexity of its products for charitable reasons. The Sleeper Curve exists because there's money to be made by making culture smarter. The economics of television syndication and DVD sales mean that there's a tremendous financial pressure to make programs that can be watched multiple times, revealing new nuances and shadings on the third viewing. Meanwhile, the Web has created a forum for annotation and commentary that allows more complicated shows to prosper, thanks to the fan sites where each episode of shows like ''Lost'' or ''Alias'' is dissected with an intensity usually reserved for Talmud scholars. Finally, interactive games have trained a new generation of media consumers to probe complex environments and to think on their feet, and that gamer audience has now come to expect the same challenges from their television shows. In the end, the Sleeper Curve tells us something about the human mind. It may be drawn toward the sensational where content is concerned -- sex does sell, after all. But the mind also likes to be challenged; there's real pleasure to be found in solving puzzles, detecting patterns or unpacking a complex narrative system.

In pointing out some of the ways that popular culture has improved our minds, I am not arguing that parents should stop paying attention to the way their children amuse themselves. What I am arguing for is a change in the criteria we use to determine what really is cognitive junk food and what is genuinely nourishing. Instead of a show's violent or tawdry content, instead of wardrobe malfunctions or the F-word, the true test should be whether a given show engages or sedates the mind. Is it a single thread strung together with predictable punch lines every 30 seconds? Or does it map a complex social network? Is your on-screen character running around shooting everything in sight, or is she trying to solve problems and manage resources? If your kids want to watch reality TV, encourage them to watch ''Survivor'' over ''Fear Factor.'' If they want to watch a mystery show, encourage ''24'' over ''Law and Order.'' If they want to play a violent game, encourage “Grand Theft Auto” over “Quake”. Indeed, it might be just as helpful to have a rating system that used mental labor and not obscenity and violence as its classification scheme for the world of mass culture.

Kids and grown-ups each can learn from their increasingly shared obsessions. Too often we imagine the blurring of kid and grown-up cultures as a series of violations: the 9-year-olds who have nipple broaches explained to them thanks to Janet Jackson; the middle-aged guy who can't wait to get home to his Xbox. But this demographic blur has a commendable side that we don't acknowledge enough. The kids are forced to think like grown-ups: analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, tracking subtle narrative intertwining, recognizing long-term patterns. The grown-ups, in turn, get to learn from the kids: decoding each new technological wave, parsing the interfaces and discovering the intellectual rewards of play. Parents should see this as an opportunity, not a crisis. Smart culture is no longer something you force our kids to ingest, like green vegetables. It's something you share.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Passage A

Most Icelanders have suffered this year during one of the worst winters ever, but one native who recently returned actually enjoys the weather. Keiko, a killer whale who has spent most of his life in captivity in North America, is adapting well to the semi-wild in a secluded bay and could be released into the open sea as early as this summer. Critics predicted the star of the hit movie "Free Willy" would experience frostbite when he returned to the frigid waters in September. But the rehabilitating whale has proved them wrong. "He's thriving," said Bob Ratliffe of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation. "He's actually energized by the weather the worse it gets. He jumps out of water to get sprayed by the salt spray." Keiko still does tricks or receives handouts occasionally, reminders of life in captivity since 1979. He was captured at the age of 1 or 2. Since then a long odyssey has taken the black and white seafarer from Canada to Mexico to the United States. In 1982 he was moved to an amusement park in Ontario. Three years later another park took him to Mexico City. There, the 6.4-meter (21-foot) sea mammal reportedly lived in a cramped pen with an excessively warm temperature. The 1993 film drew attention to his plight, and in 1996 the Free Willy Keiko Foundation moved him to a facility in Newport, Oregon. The foundation has spent over $12 million on its efforts to repatriate Keiko, and late last year flew the roughly 40,000-pound (18,100-kilogram) creature aboard a C-17 transport plane to his aquatic halfway house near the Wesman Islands. Since his return, he increasingly has shown characteristics of a wild whale, diving more frequently, eating more live fish and generally becoming more active. Keiko still must clear some hurdles before he can be released into the open sea. Trainers plan to give him a simulated stay in the wild this summer. They hope to enclose a larger bay, outfit Keiko with a satellite transmitter, and then take him for a walk. "We'll boat train him so he'll follow a target, and then we can recall him back to the boat if necessary," says Jeff Foster, also of the foundation. "That gives us access out to deeper water." Keiko has had limited contact with other marine mammals, but none of the encounters were close enough to learn much about his ability to interact in the wild. A harbor seal wandered into the pen, but quickly exited after spotting Keiko. "We've had pilot whales and mink whales and harbor porpoises, and we do see a change in behavior," Foster says. "He becomes a lot more vocal. He's a lot more active when these animals do show." The question remains; however, can Keiko relate with other animals in such a way as to ensure his survival? "There's the possibility that freedom may come this summer, but we're not going to do this in a cavalier fashion. It may very well be the following summer," Ratliffe says.  And if Keiko can't adapt, the foundation is prepared to take care of the famous leviathan for remainder of his life at an annual cost of about $1 million.

Passage B

Cavorting with his trainers Keiko spent his last day at the Oregon Coast aquarium seemingly unaware of the long journey ahead. His handlers had worried that Keiko might balk at going into his medical pool, but shortly after noon he breezed through the door. There were also concerns that he might be nervous about getting into the sling used to raise him out of the pool. To the relief of all Keiko couldn't have been more accommodating. Dave Phillips of the Free Willy Keiko Foundation says, "He's calm, not been vocalizing very much, no wiggling in the sling, a dream come true to see him go in so well, ready to take it home”. Once he was loaded into his so called cradle, the ice brigade got underway. More than a ton of ice was dumped in with Keiko as soon as he was loaded onto the truck. Keeping him cool was one of the most important missions of his handlers on the flight. Through the entire nine hour flight Keiko will be watched closely. 
Dave Phillips says, " We're gonna be monitoring his heart rate, his temperature. His skin has Lanolin to keep it from drying out on the plane." The seven and a half million dollar tank built especially for Keiko is now empty. The aquarium says it will turn it into an alternative attraction now that their biggest star is gone. Hillman Luedderman is a board member of the Oregon Coast Aquarium and he relates his feelings about Keiko leaving, "I have mixed emotions. I think the right thing's being done for Keiko, but we've grown to love him" They're ready to love him in Iceland. Some Icelandic kids were here to see Keiko off. One said, "It's great...it's fantastic" As Keiko's caravan made it's way down the highway, loyal fans lined up to bid a final farewell. Then he was loaded into the mammoth Air force C-17 jet. The plane had a smooth takeoff enroute to the long journey to Iceland. For the world’s most famous whale, a journey some hope is the final chapter of Keiko's captivity.

According to the passage, the following can be inferred about Ross except:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

War brings out the best - and the worst - in human nature. Of course it does. There is no doubt about it. War is clearly a test of human nature. We have war heroes and we have war criminals and we also have war cowards. The heroes obviously bringing out the best in human nature and the criminals bringing out the worst.

It's really quite simple. All that we need to do is look at war mongrels. People such as Hitler need to be analyzed. Some of Hitler's ideas as a civil activist were, on a political level only, well thought of. Hitler's ideas of ethnic cleansing are what makes him a bad person and therefore brought out the worst in him. Hitler's followers had no idea of how powerful he would become and when he got all the power, he did not use it appropriately.

When talking about soldiers, bringing out the best would be running through a field and picking up a wounded soldier. This shows the best in human nature and that humans are caring and sensible people. When soldiers follow unlawful commands or commit mass genocide and brutal murders, that's when we see the worst in human nature. As of the end of World War II, obeying orders was no longer a defense for soldiers because they should know the difference between right and wrong.

I think it would be safe to say that war brought out the best in Robert Ross. He understood that thousands of lives were depending on him and he came through. He showed that humans can be compassionate, caring, and emotional people. He also died saving all the horses.

There are so many events that can bring out the best or worst in humans. It's not only war, but any time or high stress situation. I think that a time of civil disobedience would bring out the best and worst. I think we find though as humans, we have our own fine line of what's right and wrong and usually this line takes us in the right direction.

“Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers”. How can this sentence be written without changing its meaning?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Today's information is highly interconnected by the Internet. With this interconnection of computer systems through the Internet comes computer crime. Breaking into computer systems, damaging information on computer systems, and stealing information on computer systems, more commonly known as hacking, has become extremely common on the Internet. As hacking becomes more frequent, and as some would say, more of a problem, should we consider hacking a criminal activity?

Information from across the world is stored on computer systems-most of which are connected, networked, to other computer systems through the Internet. In the ideal situation, this interconnection of information enables others from outside a specific computer network to access that specific computer network and its information. This has created a world in which information is extremely important and extremely easy to access, which in turn has created a government, business, and personal society that is dependant on and successful from the networked information.

But this network also has its drawbacks. Besides enabling people who need to use the information for legitimate business or personal use to gain access, the network also-often unknowingly-enables unauthorized people to gain access to the information in one way or another, no matter what kind of network security they have implemented. Gaining access to a computer system that does not intentionally allow you access is called hacking.

Hacking causes many problems for networked information. Hackers can change and damage information. They can sell information. They can destroy information. They can destroy the computer systems in which the information is stored. It is estimated that hackers have caused between $145 million and $5 billion in damage to hacked systems annually in the United States (Skinner 1). The destruction or damaging of information is why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity.

But along with hacking comes the terms to prevent hacking. Some suggest creating strict Internet laws that could be used to make and prove hacking a crime. Some suggest that the government sniff-a type of eavesdropping of the Internet-Internet traffic and monitor such things as e-mail. But both of these actions to prevent hacking, to make it a crime, also infringe on the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet. This is another reason why it is important to determine whether hacking should be considered a criminal activity, because if it is, it could affect a lot more people than just the hackers.

There are two primary sides to the hacking controversy: the hackers and the non-hackers. The hackers believe that what they are doing does not constitute a crime. One argument is that they provide a service to organizations by breaking into them. Specifically, by hackers breaking into an organization's network, they are showing the organization what their security holes are so that they can fix them.

Hackers also believe that hacking shouldn't be a crime because it is not the hacker's fault if the organization does not have a strong security system for their network. Hackers believe that if they can get into the network, it is the organization's fault, not theirs.

Hackers also believe that the Internet is free. They believe that the Internet does not belong to anyone. And for this reason, anything that is found on the Internet or on a network connected to the Internet is open to the public.

Hackers argue that if they can do it-break in to a network-they should be allowed to do it. Hackers take great pride in their computer skills and see breaking into a network as an intellectual accomplishment that few can do, so they should be awarded for it.

Non-hackers, whether they are government officials, businesses, or the general public, believe that hackers infringe on their privacy. They believe that hackers break in to their computers or computer networks and look at, change, destroy, and steal their private information.

Non-hackers believe that hackers are criminals. They are breaking into computer networks that contain private information. They liken it to a burglar breaking into a person's house. Even if that burglar does not steal or destroy anything in the house, it is still illegal for them to be there.

Some of the non-hackers believe that the Internet needs more regulation to ward off hackers. But this is where the group of non-hackers becomes divided, because with more regulation of the Internet comes less freedom of the Internet, and, probably the most important result that divides this group, less privacy. With more regulation comes more policing, and with more policing less freedom and privacy.

Other non-hackers believe that hackers need to be caught and punished, but without taking away the freedom and privacy that the Internet offers now. They do not want the government or law enforcement to monitor the Internet. They only want better laws to prosecute the hackers after they are caught and better ways of catching the hackers without infringing on the general public's privacy.

As a musician, he was a ___; but as a father, he was ___.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

The ______ family had nothing to eat, nothing to spend and ______ nothing to wear.

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks, each blank indicating that something has been omitted. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words labelled from (1) to (5). Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.