SECTION A COMPOSITION (35 MIN)

Stars are public people who are permanently in the spotlight. Some complain that there are nowhere for them to hide. Newspapers, magazines and television produce stories dealing with not only their achievements in their fields but also their private lives, sometimes with unfortunate consequences. Do famous people deserve constant public scrutiny, or should they have more protection from intrusive reporting？

Write on ANSWER SHEET TWO a composition of about 200 words on the following topic:

Should Famous People Deserve Constant Public Scrutiny？

You are to write in three parts:

In the first part, state your position.

In the second part, support your views with one or two reasons.

In the last part, bring what you have written to a natural conclusion or a summary.

Marks will be awarded for content, organization, grammar and appropriacy. Failure to follow the istructions may result in a loss of marks.

To tackle the problem o" graduation gap, the University of Wisconsin-Madison helps minority students get over the stereotype that______.

One of the surest signs of middle age is that you actually listen when outsiders tell you that maybe it's time that you started to slow down. Consider, if you will, what's happened lately with Microsoft, Amazon. com and Wal-Mart, all of which were once treated by Wall Street as high-growth companies. The more money they spent upgrading facilities and expanding into new markets, the more Wall Street loved them. All three had revolutionized their industries, were growing like mad and were more about tomorrow's potential payoff than about today.

Well, today has arrives. The Street has issued a collective judgment on our three amigos—it's declared them to be middle-aged. It hasn't done this formally, of course. But if you look at how the Street has treated these three stocks lately, it's the only conclusion that you can draw.

Being considered less-than-youthful isn't a total shock to Microsoft, which showed signs of middle-age onset when it started paying serious cash dividends a few years ago. But it's surprising to see Amazon and Wal-Mart act middle-aged. They both had seemed to be expanding without end but they've now decided it's time to slow their growth, at least in part to help keep Wall Street happy. Middle age, you see, has nothing to do with how old a company is—it has to do with how it thinks.

For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to write a composition on the topic A Letter Inviting A Foreign Teacher To Visit An Exhibition. You should write at least 120 words following the outline given below in Chinese. Write you composition on the Answer Sheet.

For this part, you are allowed thirty minutes to write a composition on the topic Getting to Know the World Outside the Campus. You should write at least 100 words and you should base your com position on the outline(given in Chinese)below:

SECTION B ENGLISH TO CHINESE

Directions: Translate the following text into Chinese.

Scientific methodology is based on generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they make sense; in laboratories throughout the world, researchers spend at least as much time trying to disprove a theory as they do trying to prove it. Eventually, those ideas that don't prove false are accepted. But fingerprinting was developed by the police, not by scientists, and it has never been subjected to rigorous analysis—you cannot go to Harvard, Berkeley, or Oxford and talk to the scholar working on fingerprint research. Yet by the early twentieth century, fingerprinting had become so widely accepted in American courts that further research no longer seemed necessary, and none of any significance has been completed.

The discussion of fingerprinting is only the most visible element in a much larger debate about how forensic science fits into the legal system. For years, any sophisticated attorney was certain to call upon expert witnesses to assert whatever might help his case. And studies have shown that juries are in fact susceptible to the influence of such experts. Until recently, though, there were no guidelines for qualification; nearly anybody could be called an expert, which meant that, unlike other witnesses, the expert could present his "opinion" almost as if it were fact.