题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
[主观题]
The law， which joined England and Scotland in 1707， was ______.
A.the Act of Supremacy
B.the Act of Union
C.the Reform. Act
D.the Magna Carta
查看答案
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
A.the Act of Supremacy
B.the Act of Union
C.the Reform. Act
D.the Magna Carta
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“The law， which joined England …”相关的问题
A.this
B.which
C.whose
D.what
In relation to the law of contract, distinguish between and explain the effect of:
(a) a term and a mere representation; (3 marks)
(b) express and implied terms, paying particular regard to the circumstances under which terms may be implied in contracts. (7 marks)
1. According to the passage, the passage mainly talks about ().
A. the scale of franchising in China
B. the franchise law in China
C. an outline of franchising in China
2. KFC was the () foreign franchise to China in 1987 and is widespread.
A. most profound
B. first
C. wealthiest
3. Many franchises are in fact joint-ventures, because ().
A. at the beginning stage, franchise law was not so clear
B. at the beginning stage, many franchises could not find the right partners
C. many foreigners were not familiar with Chinese culture
4. Foreign franchise grows in China because of ().
A. the open policy
B. the small amount of retail trade
C. the Chinese culture
5. The writer has the ()attitude to franchising in China
A. negative
B. positive
C. neutral
Questionsare based on the following passage．
It seems to be a law in the technology industry that leading companies eventually lose their positions， often quickly and brutally．Mobile phone champion Nokia， one of Europe"s biggest technology success stories， was no（36）， losing its market share in just a few years．
In 2007， Nokia accounted for more than 40% of mobile phone sales（37）But consumers"
preferences were already（38）toward touch-screen smartphones．With the introduction of Apple"s iPhone in the middle of that year， Nokia"s market share（39）rapidly and revenue plunged．By the end of 2013， Nokia had sold its phone business to Microsoft．
What sealed Nokia"s fate was a series of decisions made by Stephen Elop in his position as CEO，which he（40）in October 2010．Each day that Elop spent in charge of Nokia， the company"s market value declined by $ 23 million， making him， by the numbers， one of the worst CEOs in history．But Elop was not the only person at（41）Nokia"s board resisted change， making it impossiblefor the company to adapt to rapid shifts in the industry．Most（42）， Jorma Ollila， who had led Nokia"s transition from an industrial company to a technology giant， was too fascinated by the company"s（43）success to recognize the change that was needed to sustain its competitiveness．The company also embarked on a（44）cost-cutting program， which included the elimination of which had motivated employees to take risks and make miracles．Good leaders left the company， taking Nokia"s sense of vision and directions with them．Not surprisingly， much of Nokia"s most valuable design and programming talent left as well．
A．assumed
B．bias
C．desperate
D．deterioration
E．exception
F．fault
G．incidentally
H．notably
I．previous
J．relayed
K．shifting
L．shrank
M．subtle
N．transmitting
O．worldwide
第（36）题选
查看材料
In this country, there is far more to apprehend from Congress, than from the executive, as is seen in the following reasons: —Congress is composed of many, while the executive is one, bodies of men notoriously acting with less personal responsibilities than individuals; congress has power to enact laws, which it becomes the duty of the executive to see enforced, and the rally legislative authority of a country is always its greatest authority; from the decisions and constructions of the executive, the citizen can always appeal to the courts for protection, but no appeal can lie from the acts of congress, except on the grounds of unconstitutionality, the executive has direct personal responsibilities under the laws of the land, for any abuses of his authority, but the member of congress unless guilty of open corruption, is almost beyond personal liabilities.
It follows that the legislature of this country, by the intention of the constitution, wields the highest authority under the least responsibility, and that it is the power most to be distrusted. Still, all who possess trusts, are to be diligently watched, for there is no protection against abuses without responsibility, nor any real responsibility, without vigilance.
Political partisans, who are too apt to mistake the impulses of their own hostilities and friendships for truths, have laid down many false principles on the subject of the duties of the executive. When a law is passed, it goes to the executive for execution, through the executive agents, and, at need to the courts for interpretation. It would seem that there is no discretion vested in the executive concerning the constitutionality of a law. If he distrusts the constitutionality of any law, he can set forth his objections by resorting to the veto; but it is clearly the intention of the system that the whole legislative power, in the last resort, shall abide in congress, while it is necessary to the regular action of the government, that none of its agents, but those who are especially appointed for that purpose, shall pretend to interpret the constitution, in practice. The citizen is differently situated. If he conceives himself oppressed by an unconstitutional law, it is his inalienable privilege to raise the question before the courts, where a final interpretation can be had. By this interpretation the executive and all his agents are equally bound to abide. This obligation arises from the necessity of things, as well as from the nature of the institutions. There must be somewhere a power to decide on the constitutionality of laws, and this power is vested in the supreme court of the United States, on final appeal.
The author's purpose in writing this passage is to indicate ______.
A．the difference between kings and presidents
B．the power of the Supreme Court
C．the limitations of the presidency
D．the irresponsibility of Congress
(41)
A．which
B．why
C．that
D．for
In his summary the 【36】______ indicated he was convinced that Smith's 【37】______ was partly justified. Technically, 【38】______ , he had committed an offence. Crime must not be encouraged or the processes of the law interfered 【39】______ . He found Smith 【40】______ and fined him one dollar.
【21】
A．avoid
B．reject
C．refuse
D．neglect
But thousands of restaurant owners were not amused:Pelman v. McDonald's was the second time in a month that lawyers had tried to hold food companies responsible for America's obesity crisis.
Food and restaurant companies, fearing they would be hammered with enormous judgments, as the tobacco industry was. immediately began fighting back, waging an aggressive campaign to make it impossible for anyone to sue them successfully for causing obesity or obesity-related health problems.
Almost three years later, they have had astounding success. Twenty states have enacted versions of a"commonsense consumption"law. They vary slightly in substance, but all prevent lawsuits seeking personal injury damages related to obesity from ever being tried in their courts. Another 11 states have similar legislation pending.
Although plaintiffs' lawyers are confident there are ways around the new state laws, the measures, along with a class- action overhaul bill President Bush signed into law this year, will probably make it harder for lawyers in obesity cases to win the kind of large awards seen in tobacco cases.
The National Restaurant Association, based in Washington, and its 50 state organizations, which represent large chains like McDonald's and small independent businesses, led the campaign. In most states, lobbyists for food companies and restaurants helped write the legislation and did much of the legwork in state capitols.
Restaurant owners and food company executives personally visited state lawmakers, testified at hearings and steered campaign contributions to pivotal lawmakers. Executives from Kraft and Coca-Cola showed up in Texas, for instance, to lobby for that state' s commonsense consumption bill, which was signed into law by Gov. RickPerry last month.
According to data from the Institute on Money in State Politics. a nonpartisan research group based in Helena, Mont. , in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, the food and restaurant industry gave a total of ＄5. 5 million to politicians in the 20 states that have passed laws shielding companies from obesity liability.
Adoption of commonsense consumption laws by almost half the states reveals how an organized and impassioned lobbying effort, combined with a receptive legislative climate, can quickly alter the legal framework on a major public health issue like obesity.
Consumer advocates, who knew about the state efforts but were preoccupied trying to prevent similar measures from being enacted on a national level, are not pleased. Michael Jacobson executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, calls it "shameful" that food companies are trying to get special exemptions from lawsuits.
"If someone is saying that a 64-ounce soda at 7-Eleven contributed to obesity, that person should have his day in court, "Mr. Jacobson said. "If it's frivolous, the courts are accustomed to throwing those out. "
The purpose of the "commonsense consumption" law is to_____.
A．to protect the customers' rights in obesity cases
B．to shield the food companies from obesity charges
C．to uphold the judicial justice
D．both A and C
According to this law, changes in the prices of goods cause change in supply and demand. An increase in the price of the goods causes an increase in supply-then number of goods the producers make. Producers will make more goods when they can get higher prices for the goods. The producer makes more shoes as the price of shoes goes up. At the same time, an increase in the price of the goods causes a decrease in demand—the number of goods the consumers buy. This is because people buy less when the price is high. People buy fewer shoes as the price of shoes goes up. Conversely, a decrease in the price causes an increase in demand (people buy more shoes) and a decrease in supply (producers make fewer shoes).
Business firms look at both supply and demand when they make decisions about price and production. They look for the equilibrium point where supply equals demand. At this point, the number of shoes produced is 3000 and the price of the shoes is $30. $30 is the equilibrium price: at this price the consumers will buy all of the 3000 shoes which the producers make. If the producers increase the price of the shoes, or if they produce more than 3000 shoes, the consumers will not buy all of the shoes. The producers will have a surplus(过剩)—more supply than demand—so they must decrease the price in order to sell all of the shoes. On the other hand, if they make fewer than 3000 shoes, there will be a shoes shortage —more demand than supply—and the price will go up.
According to the Law of Supply and Demand, the equilibrium price is the best price for the good. The consumers and the producers will agree on this price because it is the only price that helps them both equally.
Why does an increase in price cause an increase in supply？ ______
A．Consumers buy more goods when prices are high.
B．Producers make more goods when prices are high.
C．Producers want to sell all of their goods.
D．Consumers will not buy all of the goods.
