The World Wide Web was invented—initially, with the intention of making it easier for scientists to share their results—and everything changed.Now, any scientist worth his grant has a website, and that site will often let the casual visitor download copies of its owner’s work.And,though it has taken a while, some publishers have decided they do mind about this—indeed one, Elsevier, based in the Netherlands, has been fighting back.It is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), an American law that lets copyright holders demand the removal of anything posted online without their permission, to require individual scientists to eliminate from their websites papers published in its journals.

Elsevier seems to have the law on its side.Like journalists writing for a newspaper, academics submitting an article to a journal usually sign contracts which transfer copyright to the publisher.But, though the firm may be right legally, culturally it is on trickier ground, given the ubiquity of current practice.As Thomas Hickerson, the University of Calgary’s chief librarian, puts it,"requesting such removals …seems at odds with the nature of an academic enterprise, in which the sharing of research information is an essential element."

The short-term response from scientists and their employers seems to be that if Elsevier persists, and other publishers join in, they will try to find legal workarounds.As the University of California, Irvine, which was on the receiving end of some of the takedown notices, points out in advice to its staff, it is usually only the final version of an article, as it appears in a journal, that is covered by publisher’s copyright.There is nothing to stop scientists making earlier versions available.Many universities run repositories in which such drafts can be deposited for anyone to read.In an article posted shortly after the row started, Elsevier itself pointed out that such earlier versions can be shared freely.

In the longer run, however, cracking down in this way risks having the perverse effect, from the publishers’ point of view, of accelerating the rise of "open access" publishing, in which papers are made available online at no cost to the reader,and which therefore sidesteps at least some of the administrative headaches of traditional journal publishing.

Many advocates of open access make a moral case for it, too, arguing that freely available research is a public good—and that much of it is paid for by taxpayers in the first place.Ross Mounce, a paleontologist at the University of Bath, in England, and an advocate of open access, is enthusiastic about what has happened."This",he says, referring to the row, "has been great for open-access advocates.Lots of people who were completely apathetic before are starting to realize the importance of how we distribute scientific research."

Elsevier has the legal right to remove papers from its authors’ website because_____.

The World Wide Web was invented—initially, with the intention of making it easier for scientists to share their results—and everything changed.Now, any scientist worth his grant has a website, and that site will often let the casual visitor download copies of its owner’s work.And,though it has taken a while, some publishers have decided they do mind about this—indeed one, Elsevier, based in the Netherlands, has been fighting back.It is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), an American law that lets copyright holders demand the removal of anything posted online without their permission, to require individual scientists to eliminate from their websites papers published in its journals.

Elsevier seems to have the law on its side.Like journalists writing for a newspaper, academics submitting an article to a journal usually sign contracts which transfer copyright to the publisher.But, though the firm may be right legally, culturally it is on trickier ground, given the ubiquity of current practice.As Thomas Hickerson, the University of Calgary’s chief librarian, puts it,"requesting such removals …seems at odds with the nature of an academic enterprise, in which the sharing of research information is an essential element."

The short-term response from scientists and their employers seems to be that if Elsevier persists, and other publishers join in, they will try to find legal workarounds.As the University of California, Irvine, which was on the receiving end of some of the takedown notices, points out in advice to its staff, it is usually only the final version of an article, as it appears in a journal, that is covered by publisher’s copyright.There is nothing to stop scientists making earlier versions available.Many universities run repositories in which such drafts can be deposited for anyone to read.In an article posted shortly after the row started, Elsevier itself pointed out that such earlier versions can be shared freely.

In the longer run, however, cracking down in this way risks having the perverse effect, from the publishers’ point of view, of accelerating the rise of "open access" publishing, in which papers are made available online at no cost to the reader,and which therefore sidesteps at least some of the administrative headaches of traditional journal publishing.

Many advocates of open access make a moral case for it, too, arguing that freely available research is a public good—and that much of it is paid for by taxpayers in the first place.Ross Mounce, a paleontologist at the University of Bath, in England, and an advocate of open access, is enthusiastic about what has happened."This",he says, referring to the row, "has been great for open-access advocates.Lots of people who were completely apathetic before are starting to realize the importance of how we distribute scientific research."

Thomas Hickers on would most likely agree that_____.

The World Wide Web was invented—initially, with the intention of making it easier for scientists to share their results—and everything changed.Now, any scientist worth his grant has a website, and that site will often let the casual visitor download copies of its owner’s work.And,though it has taken a while, some publishers have decided they do mind about this—indeed one, Elsevier, based in the Netherlands, has been fighting back.It is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), an American law that lets copyright holders demand the removal of anything posted online without their permission, to require individual scientists to eliminate from their websites papers published in its journals.

Elsevier seems to have the law on its side.Like journalists writing for a newspaper, academics submitting an article to a journal usually sign contracts which transfer copyright to the publisher.But, though the firm may be right legally, culturally it is on trickier ground, given the ubiquity of current practice.As Thomas Hickerson, the University of Calgary’s chief librarian, puts it,"requesting such removals …seems at odds with the nature of an academic enterprise, in which the sharing of research information is an essential element."

The short-term response from scientists and their employers seems to be that if Elsevier persists, and other publishers join in, they will try to find legal workarounds.As the University of California, Irvine, which was on the receiving end of some of the takedown notices, points out in advice to its staff, it is usually only the final version of an article, as it appears in a journal, that is covered by publisher’s copyright.There is nothing to stop scientists making earlier versions available.Many universities run repositories in which such drafts can be deposited for anyone to read.In an article posted shortly after the row started, Elsevier itself pointed out that such earlier versions can be shared freely.

In the longer run, however, cracking down in this way risks having the perverse effect, from the publishers’ point of view, of accelerating the rise of "open access" publishing, in which papers are made available online at no cost to the reader,and which therefore sidesteps at least some of the administrative headaches of traditional journal publishing.

Many advocates of open access make a moral case for it, too, arguing that freely available research is a public good—and that much of it is paid for by taxpayers in the first place.Ross Mounce, a paleontologist at the University of Bath, in England, and an advocate of open access, is enthusiastic about what has happened."This",he says, referring to the row, "has been great for open-access advocates.Lots of people who were completely apathetic before are starting to realize the importance of how we distribute scientific research."

It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that_____.

The World Wide Web was invented—initially, with the intention of making it easier for scientists to share their results—and everything changed.Now, any scientist worth his grant has a website, and that site will often let the casual visitor download copies of its owner’s work.And,though it has taken a while, some publishers have decided they do mind about this—indeed one, Elsevier, based in the Netherlands, has been fighting back.It is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), an American law that lets copyright holders demand the removal of anything posted online without their permission, to require individual scientists to eliminate from their websites papers published in its journals.

Elsevier seems to have the law on its side.Like journalists writing for a newspaper, academics submitting an article to a journal usually sign contracts which transfer copyright to the publisher.But, though the firm may be right legally, culturally it is on trickier ground, given the ubiquity of current practice.As Thomas Hickerson, the University of Calgary’s chief librarian, puts it,"requesting such removals …seems at odds with the nature of an academic enterprise, in which the sharing of research information is an essential element."

The short-term response from scientists and their employers seems to be that if Elsevier persists, and other publishers join in, they will try to find legal workarounds.As the University of California, Irvine, which was on the receiving end of some of the takedown notices, points out in advice to its staff, it is usually only the final version of an article, as it appears in a journal, that is covered by publisher’s copyright.There is nothing to stop scientists making earlier versions available.Many universities run repositories in which such drafts can be deposited for anyone to read.In an article posted shortly after the row started, Elsevier itself pointed out that such earlier versions can be shared freely.

In the longer run, however, cracking down in this way risks having the perverse effect, from the publishers’ point of view, of accelerating the rise of "open access" publishing, in which papers are made available online at no cost to the reader,and which therefore sidesteps at least some of the administrative headaches of traditional journal publishing.

Many advocates of open access make a moral case for it, too, arguing that freely available research is a public good—and that much of it is paid for by taxpayers in the first place.Ross Mounce, a paleontologist at the University of Bath, in England, and an advocate of open access, is enthusiastic about what has happened."This",he says, referring to the row, "has been great for open-access advocates.Lots of people who were completely apathetic before are starting to realize the importance of how we distribute scientific research."

The author believes that "open access"publishing may_____.

The World Wide Web was invented—initially, with the intention of making it easier for scientists to share their results—and everything changed.Now, any scientist worth his grant has a website, and that site will often let the casual visitor download copies of its owner’s work.And,though it has taken a while, some publishers have decided they do mind about this—indeed one, Elsevier, based in the Netherlands, has been fighting back.It is using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), an American law that lets copyright holders demand the removal of anything posted online without their permission, to require individual scientists to eliminate from their websites papers published in its journals.

Elsevier seems to have the law on its side.Like journalists writing for a newspaper, academics submitting an article to a journal usually sign contracts which transfer copyright to the publisher.But, though the firm may be right legally, culturally it is on trickier ground, given the ubiquity of current practice.As Thomas Hickerson, the University of Calgary’s chief librarian, puts it,"requesting such removals …seems at odds with the nature of an academic enterprise, in which the sharing of research information is an essential element."

The short-term response from scientists and their employers seems to be that if Elsevier persists, and other publishers join in, they will try to find legal workarounds.As the University of California, Irvine, which was on the receiving end of some of the takedown notices, points out in advice to its staff, it is usually only the final version of an article, as it appears in a journal, that is covered by publisher’s copyright.There is nothing to stop scientists making earlier versions available.Many universities run repositories in which such drafts can be deposited for anyone to read.In an article posted shortly after the row started, Elsevier itself pointed out that such earlier versions can be shared freely.

In the longer run, however, cracking down in this way risks having the perverse effect, from the publishers’ point of view, of accelerating the rise of "open access" publishing, in which papers are made available online at no cost to the reader,and which therefore sidesteps at least some of the administrative headaches of traditional journal publishing.

Many advocates of open access make a moral case for it, too, arguing that freely available research is a public good—and that much of it is paid for by taxpayers in the first place.Ross Mounce, a paleontologist at the University of Bath, in England, and an advocate of open access, is enthusiastic about what has happened."This",he says, referring to the row, "has been great for open-access advocates.Lots of people who were completely apathetic before are starting to realize the importance of how we distribute scientific research."

Which of the following is true according to the last paragraph?

Sigmund Freud has been out of the scientific mainstream for so long, it’s easy to forget that in the early-20th century he was regarded as a towering man of science—not, as he is remembered today, as the founder of the marginalized form of therapy known as psychoanalysis.At the start of his career, he wanted to invent a "science of the mind", but the Victorian tools he had were too blunt for the task.So he dropped the"science" part and had his patients lie on a couch, free-associating about childhood, dreams and fantasies.

This technique yielded the revolutionary notion that the human mind was a soap opera of concealed lust and aggression, of dark motives, self-deception and dreams rife with hidden meaning.The problem was, Freud had lots of anecdotes but almost no empirical data.With the invention of tools like the PET scan that can map the neurological activity inside a living brain, scientists discounted the windy speculations of psychoanalysis and dismissed Freud himself as the first media-savvy self-help master.

But a funny thing happened to Freud on the way to becoming a trivia question：as researchers looked deeper into the physical structure of the brain, they began to find support for some of his theories.Now a small but influential group of researchers are using his insights as a guide to future research;they even have a journal,Neuro-psychoanalysis, founded three years ago."Freud’s insights on the nature of consciousness are consonant with the most advanced contemporary neuroscience views", wrote Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Beyond the basic animal instincts to seek food and avoid pain, Freud identified two sources of psychic energy, which he called "drives":aggression and libido.The key to his theory is that these were unconscious drives, shaping our behavior without the mediation of our waking minds;they surface, heavily disguised, only in our dreams.The work of the past half-century in psychology and neuroscience has been to downplay the role of unconscious universal drives, focusing instead on rational processes in conscious life.Meanwhile, dreams were downgraded to a kind of mental static, random scraps of memory flickering through the sleeping brain.But researchers have found evidence that Freud’s drives really do exist, and they have their roots in the limbic system.Freud presaged this finding in 1915, when he wrote that drives originate "from within the organism" in response to demands placed on the mind "in consequence of its connection with the body".Drives, in other words, are primitive brain circuits that control how we respond to our environment.

From the first paragraph, we can learn that_____.

Sigmund Freud has been out of the scientific mainstream for so long, it’s easy to forget that in the early-20th century he was regarded as a towering man of science—not, as he is remembered today, as the founder of the marginalized form of therapy known as psychoanalysis.At the start of his career, he wanted to invent a "science of the mind", but the Victorian tools he had were too blunt for the task.So he dropped the"science" part and had his patients lie on a couch, free-associating about childhood, dreams and fantasies.

This technique yielded the revolutionary notion that the human mind was a soap opera of concealed lust and aggression, of dark motives, self-deception and dreams rife with hidden meaning.The problem was, Freud had lots of anecdotes but almost no empirical data.With the invention of tools like the PET scan that can map the neurological activity inside a living brain, scientists discounted the windy speculations of psychoanalysis and dismissed Freud himself as the first media-savvy self-help master.

But a funny thing happened to Freud on the way to becoming a trivia question：as researchers looked deeper into the physical structure of the brain, they began to find support for some of his theories.Now a small but influential group of researchers are using his insights as a guide to future research;they even have a journal,Neuro-psychoanalysis, founded three years ago."Freud’s insights on the nature of consciousness are consonant with the most advanced contemporary neuroscience views", wrote Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Beyond the basic animal instincts to seek food and avoid pain, Freud identified two sources of psychic energy, which he called "drives":aggression and libido.The key to his theory is that these were unconscious drives, shaping our behavior without the mediation of our waking minds;they surface, heavily disguised, only in our dreams.The work of the past half-century in psychology and neuroscience has been to downplay the role of unconscious universal drives, focusing instead on rational processes in conscious life.Meanwhile, dreams were downgraded to a kind of mental static, random scraps of memory flickering through the sleeping brain.But researchers have found evidence that Freud’s drives really do exist, and they have their roots in the limbic system.Freud presaged this finding in 1915, when he wrote that drives originate "from within the organism" in response to demands placed on the mind "in consequence of its connection with the body".Drives, in other words, are primitive brain circuits that control how we respond to our environment.

What is the drawback of Freud’s creative theory about human mind?

Sigmund Freud has been out of the scientific mainstream for so long, it’s easy to forget that in the early-20th century he was regarded as a towering man of science—not, as he is remembered today, as the founder of the marginalized form of therapy known as psychoanalysis.At the start of his career, he wanted to invent a "science of the mind", but the Victorian tools he had were too blunt for the task.So he dropped the"science" part and had his patients lie on a couch, free-associating about childhood, dreams and fantasies.

This technique yielded the revolutionary notion that the human mind was a soap opera of concealed lust and aggression, of dark motives, self-deception and dreams rife with hidden meaning.The problem was, Freud had lots of anecdotes but almost no empirical data.With the invention of tools like the PET scan that can map the neurological activity inside a living brain, scientists discounted the windy speculations of psychoanalysis and dismissed Freud himself as the first media-savvy self-help master.

But a funny thing happened to Freud on the way to becoming a trivia question：as researchers looked deeper into the physical structure of the brain, they began to find support for some of his theories.Now a small but influential group of researchers are using his insights as a guide to future research;they even have a journal,Neuro-psychoanalysis, founded three years ago."Freud’s insights on the nature of consciousness are consonant with the most advanced contemporary neuroscience views", wrote Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Beyond the basic animal instincts to seek food and avoid pain, Freud identified two sources of psychic energy, which he called "drives":aggression and libido.The key to his theory is that these were unconscious drives, shaping our behavior without the mediation of our waking minds;they surface, heavily disguised, only in our dreams.The work of the past half-century in psychology and neuroscience has been to downplay the role of unconscious universal drives, focusing instead on rational processes in conscious life.Meanwhile, dreams were downgraded to a kind of mental static, random scraps of memory flickering through the sleeping brain.But researchers have found evidence that Freud’s drives really do exist, and they have their roots in the limbic system.Freud presaged this finding in 1915, when he wrote that drives originate "from within the organism" in response to demands placed on the mind "in consequence of its connection with the body".Drives, in other words, are primitive brain circuits that control how we respond to our environment.

The author mentioned work of "a small group of researchers" in order to_____.

Sigmund Freud has been out of the scientific mainstream for so long, it’s easy to forget that in the early-20th century he was regarded as a towering man of science—not, as he is remembered today, as the founder of the marginalized form of therapy known as psychoanalysis.At the start of his career, he wanted to invent a "science of the mind", but the Victorian tools he had were too blunt for the task.So he dropped the"science" part and had his patients lie on a couch, free-associating about childhood, dreams and fantasies.

This technique yielded the revolutionary notion that the human mind was a soap opera of concealed lust and aggression, of dark motives, self-deception and dreams rife with hidden meaning.The problem was, Freud had lots of anecdotes but almost no empirical data.With the invention of tools like the PET scan that can map the neurological activity inside a living brain, scientists discounted the windy speculations of psychoanalysis and dismissed Freud himself as the first media-savvy self-help master.

But a funny thing happened to Freud on the way to becoming a trivia question：as researchers looked deeper into the physical structure of the brain, they began to find support for some of his theories.Now a small but influential group of researchers are using his insights as a guide to future research;they even have a journal,Neuro-psychoanalysis, founded three years ago."Freud’s insights on the nature of consciousness are consonant with the most advanced contemporary neuroscience views", wrote Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Beyond the basic animal instincts to seek food and avoid pain, Freud identified two sources of psychic energy, which he called "drives":aggression and libido.The key to his theory is that these were unconscious drives, shaping our behavior without the mediation of our waking minds;they surface, heavily disguised, only in our dreams.The work of the past half-century in psychology and neuroscience has been to downplay the role of unconscious universal drives, focusing instead on rational processes in conscious life.Meanwhile, dreams were downgraded to a kind of mental static, random scraps of memory flickering through the sleeping brain.But researchers have found evidence that Freud’s drives really do exist, and they have their roots in the limbic system.Freud presaged this finding in 1915, when he wrote that drives originate "from within the organism" in response to demands placed on the mind "in consequence of its connection with the body".Drives, in other words, are primitive brain circuits that control how we respond to our environment.

What could be a major characteristic of"drives" defined by Freud?

Sigmund Freud has been out of the scientific mainstream for so long, it’s easy to forget that in the early-20th century he was regarded as a towering man of science—not, as he is remembered today, as the founder of the marginalized form of therapy known as psychoanalysis.At the start of his career, he wanted to invent a "science of the mind", but the Victorian tools he had were too blunt for the task.So he dropped the"science" part and had his patients lie on a couch, free-associating about childhood, dreams and fantasies.

This technique yielded the revolutionary notion that the human mind was a soap opera of concealed lust and aggression, of dark motives, self-deception and dreams rife with hidden meaning.The problem was, Freud had lots of anecdotes but almost no empirical data.With the invention of tools like the PET scan that can map the neurological activity inside a living brain, scientists discounted the windy speculations of psychoanalysis and dismissed Freud himself as the first media-savvy self-help master.

But a funny thing happened to Freud on the way to becoming a trivia question：as researchers looked deeper into the physical structure of the brain, they began to find support for some of his theories.Now a small but influential group of researchers are using his insights as a guide to future research;they even have a journal,Neuro-psychoanalysis, founded three years ago."Freud’s insights on the nature of consciousness are consonant with the most advanced contemporary neuroscience views", wrote Antonio Damasio, head of neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Beyond the basic animal instincts to seek food and avoid pain, Freud identified two sources of psychic energy, which he called "drives":aggression and libido.The key to his theory is that these were unconscious drives, shaping our behavior without the mediation of our waking minds;they surface, heavily disguised, only in our dreams.The work of the past half-century in psychology and neuroscience has been to downplay the role of unconscious universal drives, focusing instead on rational processes in conscious life.Meanwhile, dreams were downgraded to a kind of mental static, random scraps of memory flickering through the sleeping brain.But researchers have found evidence that Freud’s drives really do exist, and they have their roots in the limbic system.Freud presaged this finding in 1915, when he wrote that drives originate "from within the organism" in response to demands placed on the mind "in consequence of its connection with the body".Drives, in other words, are primitive brain circuits that control how we respond to our environment.

Which of the following could be the possible purpose of the text?

On the third season of "House of Cards", a fictional Supreme Court justice mulls retirement when he is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.Aside from some overblown criticism of the conservative justices, nobody is speculating that anybody on the real-life Supreme Court is suffering from a degenerative brain disease.But the show’s plotline calls attention to the fact that, barring death or an impeachable offence, the justices themselves decide when to hang up their robes.And today’ s Supremes are no spring chickens.

Is there anything wrong with a grey bench? Fix the Courts, an advocacy group, says yes, and proposes that future nominees to the Supreme Court take a pledge to serve no more than 18 years before stepping down.But are term limits for justices,whether imposed or voluntarily agreed to, a good idea? Fix the Courts has one primary argument in favor of fresh blood, and it’s not quite convincing.The goal of life tenure was to "shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day", the group observes, but"today’s justices…, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and deadlocked political institutions".

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.First,while the Roberts Court issues more closely divided rulings than previous courts ever did, it’s a myth that "today’s justices" are more political than their forebears.In 1803, under Chief Justice John Marshall, the court flexed its Federalist party muscle against the new president,Thomas Jefferson, in its ingenious Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Second, 5 - 4 decisions show the justices may be "polarized" on certain issues, but it does not mean the justices are "partisan".Nobody on the court seeks to toe the line of either of the major political parties.In fact, during the term that ended in June, many of the justices—the conservative ones in particular—were willing to stray from their typical ideological camps in plenty of cases.For example, Justice Thomas voted against his conservative brethren in permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates.

No matter how wise or enlightened they may be, a bench of seven or nineoctogenarians （八十岁到八十九岁的人） will have a circumscribed perspective on the country for which they are adjudicating fundamental questions.But breathing new life into the nation’s highest court more often—even if it does not make the tribunal any less political—would bring more dynamism to the judiciary, jog the justices’ decision-making patterns and narrow, even if only slightly, the yawning gap between the enrobed ones and everyday citizens.

In the first paragraph, the author suggests that

On the third season of "House of Cards", a fictional Supreme Court justice mulls retirement when he is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.Aside from some overblown criticism of the conservative justices, nobody is speculating that anybody on the real-life Supreme Court is suffering from a degenerative brain disease.But the show’s plotline calls attention to the fact that, barring death or an impeachable offence, the justices themselves decide when to hang up their robes.And today’ s Supremes are no spring chickens.

Is there anything wrong with a grey bench? Fix the Courts, an advocacy group, says yes, and proposes that future nominees to the Supreme Court take a pledge to serve no more than 18 years before stepping down.But are term limits for justices,whether imposed or voluntarily agreed to, a good idea? Fix the Courts has one primary argument in favor of fresh blood, and it’s not quite convincing.The goal of life tenure was to "shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day", the group observes, but"today’s justices…, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and deadlocked political institutions".

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.First,while the Roberts Court issues more closely divided rulings than previous courts ever did, it’s a myth that "today’s justices" are more political than their forebears.In 1803, under Chief Justice John Marshall, the court flexed its Federalist party muscle against the new president,Thomas Jefferson, in its ingenious Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Second, 5 - 4 decisions show the justices may be "polarized" on certain issues, but it does not mean the justices are "partisan".Nobody on the court seeks to toe the line of either of the major political parties.In fact, during the term that ended in June, many of the justices—the conservative ones in particular—were willing to stray from their typical ideological camps in plenty of cases.For example, Justice Thomas voted against his conservative brethren in permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates.

No matter how wise or enlightened they may be, a bench of seven or nineoctogenarians （八十岁到八十九岁的人） will have a circumscribed perspective on the country for which they are adjudicating fundamental questions.But breathing new life into the nation’s highest court more often—even if it does not make the tribunal any less political—would bring more dynamism to the judiciary, jog the justices’ decision-making patterns and narrow, even if only slightly, the yawning gap between the enrobed ones and everyday citizens.

Which of the following is true according to Fix the Courts?

On the third season of "House of Cards", a fictional Supreme Court justice mulls retirement when he is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.Aside from some overblown criticism of the conservative justices, nobody is speculating that anybody on the real-life Supreme Court is suffering from a degenerative brain disease.But the show’s plotline calls attention to the fact that, barring death or an impeachable offence, the justices themselves decide when to hang up their robes.And today’ s Supremes are no spring chickens.

Is there anything wrong with a grey bench? Fix the Courts, an advocacy group, says yes, and proposes that future nominees to the Supreme Court take a pledge to serve no more than 18 years before stepping down.But are term limits for justices,whether imposed or voluntarily agreed to, a good idea? Fix the Courts has one primary argument in favor of fresh blood, and it’s not quite convincing.The goal of life tenure was to "shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day", the group observes, but"today’s justices…, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and deadlocked political institutions".

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.First,while the Roberts Court issues more closely divided rulings than previous courts ever did, it’s a myth that "today’s justices" are more political than their forebears.In 1803, under Chief Justice John Marshall, the court flexed its Federalist party muscle against the new president,Thomas Jefferson, in its ingenious Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Second, 5 - 4 decisions show the justices may be "polarized" on certain issues, but it does not mean the justices are "partisan".Nobody on the court seeks to toe the line of either of the major political parties.In fact, during the term that ended in June, many of the justices—the conservative ones in particular—were willing to stray from their typical ideological camps in plenty of cases.For example, Justice Thomas voted against his conservative brethren in permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates.

No matter how wise or enlightened they may be, a bench of seven or nineoctogenarians （八十岁到八十九岁的人） will have a circumscribed perspective on the country for which they are adjudicating fundamental questions.But breathing new life into the nation’s highest court more often—even if it does not make the tribunal any less political—would bring more dynamism to the judiciary, jog the justices’ decision-making patterns and narrow, even if only slightly, the yawning gap between the enrobed ones and everyday citizens.

In Paragraph 3, Marbury v.Madison is mentioned to indicate_____.

On the third season of "House of Cards", a fictional Supreme Court justice mulls retirement when he is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.Aside from some overblown criticism of the conservative justices, nobody is speculating that anybody on the real-life Supreme Court is suffering from a degenerative brain disease.But the show’s plotline calls attention to the fact that, barring death or an impeachable offence, the justices themselves decide when to hang up their robes.And today’ s Supremes are no spring chickens.

Is there anything wrong with a grey bench? Fix the Courts, an advocacy group, says yes, and proposes that future nominees to the Supreme Court take a pledge to serve no more than 18 years before stepping down.But are term limits for justices,whether imposed or voluntarily agreed to, a good idea? Fix the Courts has one primary argument in favor of fresh blood, and it’s not quite convincing.The goal of life tenure was to "shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day", the group observes, but"today’s justices…, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and deadlocked political institutions".

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.First,while the Roberts Court issues more closely divided rulings than previous courts ever did, it’s a myth that "today’s justices" are more political than their forebears.In 1803, under Chief Justice John Marshall, the court flexed its Federalist party muscle against the new president,Thomas Jefferson, in its ingenious Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Second, 5 - 4 decisions show the justices may be "polarized" on certain issues, but it does not mean the justices are "partisan".Nobody on the court seeks to toe the line of either of the major political parties.In fact, during the term that ended in June, many of the justices—the conservative ones in particular—were willing to stray from their typical ideological camps in plenty of cases.For example, Justice Thomas voted against his conservative brethren in permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates.

No matter how wise or enlightened they may be, a bench of seven or nineoctogenarians （八十岁到八十九岁的人） will have a circumscribed perspective on the country for which they are adjudicating fundamental questions.But breathing new life into the nation’s highest court more often—even if it does not make the tribunal any less political—would bring more dynamism to the judiciary, jog the justices’ decision-making patterns and narrow, even if only slightly, the yawning gap between the enrobed ones and everyday citizens.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that Justice Thomas_____.

On the third season of "House of Cards", a fictional Supreme Court justice mulls retirement when he is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.Aside from some overblown criticism of the conservative justices, nobody is speculating that anybody on the real-life Supreme Court is suffering from a degenerative brain disease.But the show’s plotline calls attention to the fact that, barring death or an impeachable offence, the justices themselves decide when to hang up their robes.And today’ s Supremes are no spring chickens.

Is there anything wrong with a grey bench? Fix the Courts, an advocacy group, says yes, and proposes that future nominees to the Supreme Court take a pledge to serve no more than 18 years before stepping down.But are term limits for justices,whether imposed or voluntarily agreed to, a good idea? Fix the Courts has one primary argument in favor of fresh blood, and it’s not quite convincing.The goal of life tenure was to "shield those serving on the court from the political pressures of the day", the group observes, but"today’s justices…, are polarized along partisan lines in a way that mirrors our other broken and deadlocked political institutions".

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.First,while the Roberts Court issues more closely divided rulings than previous courts ever did, it’s a myth that "today’s justices" are more political than their forebears.In 1803, under Chief Justice John Marshall, the court flexed its Federalist party muscle against the new president,Thomas Jefferson, in its ingenious Marbury v. Madison ruling.

Second, 5 - 4 decisions show the justices may be "polarized" on certain issues, but it does not mean the justices are "partisan".Nobody on the court seeks to toe the line of either of the major political parties.In fact, during the term that ended in June, many of the justices—the conservative ones in particular—were willing to stray from their typical ideological camps in plenty of cases.For example, Justice Thomas voted against his conservative brethren in permitting Texas to refuse to print Confederate flags on license plates.

No matter how wise or enlightened they may be, a bench of seven or nineoctogenarians （八十岁到八十九岁的人） will have a circumscribed perspective on the country for which they are adjudicating fundamental questions.But breathing new life into the nation’s highest court more often—even if it does not make the tribunal any less political—would bring more dynamism to the judiciary, jog the justices’ decision-making patterns and narrow, even if only slightly, the yawning gap between the enrobed ones and everyday citizens.

In this text, the author mainly discusses_____.

When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry.Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity.Evolution is mostly to blame.It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty.People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones.But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies.

Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure,persuade people to get thinner,just as they finally put them off tobacco? Possibly.In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history.But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century’s dining to excess.And,everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds.That’s why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them.

A valid argument for intervention is that thin people subsidize fat people through health care.If everybody is forced to carry the weight of the seriously fat, then everybody has an interest in seeing them slim down.

That should not be a problem in insurance-financed health-care systems, such as America’s.Insurance companies should be able to charge fat people more, because they cost more.But group health insurance schemes, which cover most Americans,are forbidden, by law, to discriminate against fat people.The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, is trying to wiggle his way around this prohibition to allow health companies to give discounts to people on fitness programs.He should not have to:rules that prevent insurance companies charging fat people what they really cost should go.

That leaves the question of what should happen in a state-financed health system.Why not tax fattening food—sweets, snacks and take-away？That might discourage consumption of unhealthy food and recoup some of the costs of obesity.

It might；but it would also constitute too great an intrusion on liberty for the gain in equity and efficiency it represents.Society has a legitimate interest in fat, because fat and thin people both pay for it.But it also has a legitimate interest in not having the government stick its nose too far into the private sphere.If people want to eat their way to grossness and an early grave, let them.

What can we learn from the first paragraph?

When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry.Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity.Evolution is mostly to blame.It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty.People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones.But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies.

Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure,persuade people to get thinner,just as they finally put them off tobacco? Possibly.In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history.But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century’s dining to excess.And,everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds.That’s why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them.

A valid argument for intervention is that thin people subsidize fat people through health care.If everybody is forced to carry the weight of the seriously fat, then everybody has an interest in seeing them slim down.

That should not be a problem in insurance-financed health-care systems, such as America’s.Insurance companies should be able to charge fat people more, because they cost more.But group health insurance schemes, which cover most Americans,are forbidden, by law, to discriminate against fat people.The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, is trying to wiggle his way around this prohibition to allow health companies to give discounts to people on fitness programs.He should not have to:rules that prevent insurance companies charging fat people what they really cost should go.

That leaves the question of what should happen in a state-financed health system.Why not tax fattening food—sweets, snacks and take-away？That might discourage consumption of unhealthy food and recoup some of the costs of obesity.

It might；but it would also constitute too great an intrusion on liberty for the gain in equity and efficiency it represents.Society has a legitimate interest in fat, because fat and thin people both pay for it.But it also has a legitimate interest in not having the government stick its nose too far into the private sphere.If people want to eat their way to grossness and an early grave, let them.

According to the author, to issue warnings to the public______.

When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry.Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity.Evolution is mostly to blame.It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty.People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones.But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies.

Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure,persuade people to get thinner,just as they finally put them off tobacco? Possibly.In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history.But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century’s dining to excess.And,everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds.That’s why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them.

A valid argument for intervention is that thin people subsidize fat people through health care.If everybody is forced to carry the weight of the seriously fat, then everybody has an interest in seeing them slim down.

That should not be a problem in insurance-financed health-care systems, such as America’s.Insurance companies should be able to charge fat people more, because they cost more.But group health insurance schemes, which cover most Americans,are forbidden, by law, to discriminate against fat people.The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, is trying to wiggle his way around this prohibition to allow health companies to give discounts to people on fitness programs.He should not have to:rules that prevent insurance companies charging fat people what they really cost should go.

That leaves the question of what should happen in a state-financed health system.Why not tax fattening food—sweets, snacks and take-away？That might discourage consumption of unhealthy food and recoup some of the costs of obesity.

It might；but it would also constitute too great an intrusion on liberty for the gain in equity and efficiency it represents.Society has a legitimate interest in fat, because fat and thin people both pay for it.But it also has a legitimate interest in not having the government stick its nose too far into the private sphere.If people want to eat their way to grossness and an early grave, let them.

What justifies the official involvement in obesity according to the author?

When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry.Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity.Evolution is mostly to blame.It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty.People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones.But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies.

Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure,persuade people to get thinner,just as they finally put them off tobacco? Possibly.In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history.But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century’s dining to excess.And,everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds.That’s why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them.

A valid argument for intervention is that thin people subsidize fat people through health care.If everybody is forced to carry the weight of the seriously fat, then everybody has an interest in seeing them slim down.

That should not be a problem in insurance-financed health-care systems, such as America’s.Insurance companies should be able to charge fat people more, because they cost more.But group health insurance schemes, which cover most Americans,are forbidden, by law, to discriminate against fat people.The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, is trying to wiggle his way around this prohibition to allow health companies to give discounts to people on fitness programs.He should not have to:rules that prevent insurance companies charging fat people what they really cost should go.

That leaves the question of what should happen in a state-financed health system.Why not tax fattening food—sweets, snacks and take-away？That might discourage consumption of unhealthy food and recoup some of the costs of obesity.

It might；but it would also constitute too great an intrusion on liberty for the gain in equity and efficiency it represents.Society has a legitimate interest in fat, because fat and thin people both pay for it.But it also has a legitimate interest in not having the government stick its nose too far into the private sphere.If people want to eat their way to grossness and an early grave, let them.

Which of the following does Thompson probably support?

When the world was a simpler place, the rich were fat, the poor were thin, and right-thinking people worried about how to feed the hungry.Now, in much of the world, the rich are thin, the poor are fat, and right-thinking people are worrying about obesity.Evolution is mostly to blame.It has designed mankind to cope with deprivation, not plenty.People are perfectly tuned to store energy in good years to see them through lean ones.But when bad times never come, they are stuck with that energy, stored around their expanding bellies.

Will public-health warnings, combined with media pressure,persuade people to get thinner,just as they finally put them off tobacco? Possibly.In the rich world, sales of healthier foods are booming and new figures suggest that over the past year Americans got very slightly thinner for the first time in recorded history.But even if Americans are losing a few ounces, it will be many years before the country solves the health problems caused by half a century’s dining to excess.And,everywhere else in the world, people are still piling on the pounds.That’s why there is now a consensus among doctors that governments should do something to stop them.

A valid argument for intervention is that thin people subsidize fat people through health care.If everybody is forced to carry the weight of the seriously fat, then everybody has an interest in seeing them slim down.

That should not be a problem in insurance-financed health-care systems, such as America’s.Insurance companies should be able to charge fat people more, because they cost more.But group health insurance schemes, which cover most Americans,are forbidden, by law, to discriminate against fat people.The health secretary, Tommy Thompson, is trying to wiggle his way around this prohibition to allow health companies to give discounts to people on fitness programs.He should not have to:rules that prevent insurance companies charging fat people what they really cost should go.

That leaves the question of what should happen in a state-financed health system.Why not tax fattening food—sweets, snacks and take-away？That might discourage consumption of unhealthy food and recoup some of the costs of obesity.

It might；but it would also constitute too great an intrusion on liberty for the gain in equity and efficiency it represents.Society has a legitimate interest in fat, because fat and thin people both pay for it.But it also has a legitimate interest in not having the government stick its nose too far into the private sphere.If people want to eat their way to grossness and an early grave, let them.

The author warns that government intervention______.