Directions:
Read the following text. Choose the best word(s) for each numbered blank and mark [A], [B], [C] or [D] on ANSWER SHEET 1. (10 points)
In 1924 American’ National Research Council sent to engineers to supervise a series of industrial experiments at a large telephone-parts factory called the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago. It hoped they would learn how stop-floor lignting__1__workers productivity. Instead, the studies ended __2___giving their name to the “Hawthorne effect”, the extremely influential idea that the very___3____to being experimented upon changed subjects’ behavior.
The idea arose because of the __4____behavior of the women in the Hawthorne plant. According to __5____of the experiments, their hourly output rose when lighting was increased, but also when it was dimmed. It did not __6____what was done in the experiment; ___7_someting was changed ,productivity rose. A(n)___8___that they were being experimented upon seemed to be ____9___to alter workers’ behavior ____10____itself.
After several decades, the same data were _11__ to econometric the analysis. Hawthorne experiments has another surprise store _12 __the descriptions on record, no systematic _13__ was found that levels of productivity were related to changes in lighting. It turns out that peculiar way of conducting the experiments may be have let to__ 14__ interpretation of what happed.__ 15___ , lighting was always changed on a Sunday .When work started again on Monday, output __16___ rose compared with the previous Saturday and__ 17 __to rise for the next couple of days.__ 18__ , a comparison with data for weeks when there was no experimentation showed that output always went up on Monday, workers__ 19__ to be diligent for the first few days of the week in any case , before __20 __a plateau and then slackening off. This suggests that the alleged” Hawthorne effect “ is hard to pin down.
1. [A] affected [B] achieved [C] extracted [D] restored
2. [A] at [B]up[C] with [D] off
3. [A]truth [B]sight [C] act [D] proof
4. [A] controversial [B] perplexing [C]mischievous [D] ambiguous
5. [A]requirements [B]explanations [C] accounts [D] assessments
6. [A] conclude [B] matter[C] indicate [D] work
7. [A] as far as [B] for fear that [C] in case that [D] so long as
8. [A] awareness[B] expectation [C] sentiment [D] illusion
9. [A] suitable[B] excessive [C] enough [D] abundant
10. [A] about [B] for[C] on [D] by
11. [A] compared [B]shown [C] subjected [D] conveyed
12. [A] contrary to [B] consistent with [C] parallel with [D] pealliar to
13. [A] evidence [B]guidance [C]implication [D]source
14. [A] disputable [B]enlightening [C]reliable [D]misleading
15. [A] In contrast [B] For example [C] In consequence [D] As usual
16. [A] duly [B]accidentally [C] unpredictably [D] suddenly
17. [A]failed [B]ceased [C]started [D]continued
20. [A]breaking [B]climbing [C]surpassing [D]hiting
Section II Reading Comprehension
Part A
Directions:
Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing [A], [B], [C] or [D]. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. (40 points)
Text 2
Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.
Now the nation’s top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz the U.S. court of Appeals for the federal circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski , as the case is known , is “a very big deal”, says Dennis’D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”
Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the federal circuit itself that introduced such patents with is 1998 decision in the so-called state Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging internet companies trying to stake out exclusive pinhts to specific types of online transactions. Later, move established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment films armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.
The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court’s judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should” reconsider” its state street Bank ruling.
The Federal Circuit’s action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the supreme Count that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal circuit are “reacting to the anti_ patent trend at the supreme court” ,says Harole C.wegner, a partend attorney and professor at aeorge Washington University Law School.
法硕课程试听
