We tried to settle the argument but ___ nothing.

A.finish B.completed C.ended D.accomplished

A job description should give details of the performance ______ a specific job.

Members of the opposite culture felt a need to point out to us how these actions ______ have the opposite effect of what we intended and desired.

All the difficulties of words meaning make for problems of draftsmanship as well as of interpretation. The legal draftsman attempts to cover every situation that might arise in the operation of his statute but may fail to foreshadow some interpretations which may be placed upon the words he has chosen. Likewise he may fail to foreshadow some situation which arises under the statute and when it does arise there is again a question of interpretation of the words he has used to determine whether they can be stretched to cover the unforeseen situation. Rules of interpretation have been worked out to assist judges and lawyers in this process. One difficulty peculiar to legal language is that neither draftsmanship nor judge or legislator can be consulted at a later point of time regarding the meanings of words used by them. It is meaning to be placed upon it even though that meaning might in fact be different to that which was in fact intended by the write.

I. JurisprudenceIt is practically impossible to imagine constitutional law without dissent. The very first opinion in the Charter era — the Patriation Reference — was marked by it. Dissent is powerful and evocative, even mythic; it suggests roads not taken and parallel universes. It evokes a fundamental and, sometimes, unsettling contingency about law. It can be problematic, disrupting easy understandings of how to a court “gets it right” and, thus, damaging to a court’s legitimacy.Yet, dissent has positive aspects, too. It can: better articulate norms and understandings underlying key decision-rules; provide a counter-narrative to prevailing orthodoxy; lay the foundation for future development of law; provide a necessary outlet for disagreement that otherwise might constrain and frustrate judicial actors; and even secure broader acceptance of a majority decision by showing that it is a product of deliberation.In this paper, I present another possible “upside” to dissent that focuses on the issue in Quebec (Attorney General) v. A: equality. First, I canvass two ways that dissent manifests in Charter jurisprudence: one (functional) relating to the judiciary’s appropriate role in constitutional disputes; and the other (principled) relating to the identification, scope or application of rules and norms. The two models are richly represented in equality jurisprudence. In the Supreme Court’s first Section 15 case, Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, the Court divided over the functional question of how closely the Court should scrutinize legislated difference. In subsequent cases, the Court has struggled to reach consensus on the meaning of equality itself — an issue of principle.The fact that equality jurisprudence has been characterized by chronic disagreement might appear unfortunate. But my review of section 15 case law suggests that, by providing the space to fully flesh out points of disagreement, dissent has contributed to richer accounts of equality. Borrowing the language of Cass Sunstein, I suggest that a divided equality decision that is the result of failure to reach agreement on “deep” issues is preferable to one that, as the price of unanimity, remains “shallow”. I conclude that the decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. A is deep rather than shallow and so, despite its frustrating divisions, it is on the whole better than many of the unanimous equality decisions that preceded it.1.The author listed the following positive aspects of dissent BUT ___.2.From the third paragraph, one can know the following BUT ___.3.The author thinks that a divided equality decision is preferable because ___.4.What is the most suitable topic for these paragraphs?

In cities with rent control, the city government sets the maximum rent that a landlord can charge for an apartment. Supporters of rent control argue that it protects people who are living in apartments. Their rent cannot increase; therefore, they are not in danger of losing their homes. However, the critics say that after a long time, rent control may have negative effects. Landlords know that they cannot increase their profits. Therefore, they invest in other businesses where they can increase their profits. They do not invest in new buildings which would also be rent-controlled. As a result, new apartments are not built. Many people who need apartments cannot find any. According to the critics, the end result of rent control is a shortage of apartments in the city.Some theorists argue that the minimum wage law can cause problems in the same way. The federal government sets the minimum that an employer must pay workers. The minimum helps people who generally look for unskilled, low-paying jobs. However, if the minimum is high, employers may hire fewer workers. They will replace workers with machinery. The price, which is the wage that employers must pay, increases. Therefore, other things being equal, the number of workers that employers want decreases. Thus, critics claim, an increase in the minimum wage may cause unemployment. Some poor people may find themselves without jobs instead of with jobs at the minimum wage.Supporters of the minimum wage say that it helps people keep their dignity. Because of the law, workers cannot sell their services for less than the minimum. Furthermore, employers cannot force workers to accept jobs at unfair wages.Economic theory predicts the results of economic decisions such as decisions about farm production, rent control, and the minimum wage. The predictions may be correct only if “other things are equal”.Economists do not agree on some of the predictions. They also do not agree on the value of different decisions. Some economists support a particular decision while others criticize it. Economists do agree, however, that there are no simple answers to economic questions.1. There is the possibility that setting maximum rent may ______.

2. According to the critics, rent control ______.

3. The problem of unemployment will arise, ______.

4. The passage tells us ______.

5. Which of the following statements is NOT true?