【正文】 e of the results of grief mentioned in the article is [A] loss of friendships. [B] diminished socializing. [C] vulnerability to disease. [D] loss of appetite.9. The passage states that while married couples can prepare for grieving by [A] being selfreliant. [B] evading intimacy. [C] developing habits. [D] avoiding independence.10. Helsing speculates that husbands suffer from the death of a spouse because they are [A] unprepared for independence. [B] incapable of cooking. [C] unwilling to talk. [D] dissatisfied with themselves. B. Read the following passage and answer the questions. Your answers should be given in English. Be brief and straight to the point. (20%)The Penalty of DeathH. L. Mencken Of the arguments against capital punishment that issue from uplifters, two are monly heard most often, to wit: 1. That hanging a man (or frying him or gassing him) is a dreadful business, degrading to those who have to do it and revolting to those who have to witness it. 2. That it is useless, for it does not deter others from the same crime. The first of these arguments, it seems to me, is plainly too weak to need serious refutation. All it says, in brief, is that the work of the hangman is unpleasant. Granted. But suppose it is? It may be quite necessary to society for all that. There are, indeed, many other jobs that are unpleasant, and yet no one thinks of abolishing themthat of the plumber, that of the soldier, that of the garbage man, that of the priest hearing confessions, that of the sandhog, and so on. Moreover, what evidence is there that any actual hangman plains of his work? I have heard none. On the contrary, I have known many who delighted in their ancient art, and practiced it proudly. In the second argument of the abolitionists there is rather more force, but even here, I believe, the ground under them is shaky. Their fundamental error consists in assuming that the whole aim of punishing criminals is to deter other (potential) criminal that we hang or electrocute A simply in order to so alarm B that he will not kill C. This, I believe, is an assumption which confuses a part with the whole. Deterrence, obviously, is one of the aims of punishment, but it is surely not the only one. On the contrary, there are at least a half dozen, and some are probably quite as important. At least one of them, practically considered, is more important. Commonly, it is described as revenge, but revenge is really not the word for it. I borrow a better term from the late Aristotle: katharsis. Katharsis, so used, means a salubrious discharge of emotions, a healthy letting off of steam. A schoolboy, disliking his teacher, deposits a tack upon the pedagogical chair。 the device’s ubiquitous eye, sensing where people are at all times, will similarly turn the lights on and off as needed. Paper clutter will disappear as home information management systems take over from memo pads, notebooks, files, bills and the kitchen bulletin board.A. Write a summary of this passage in about 50 words. (6%).B. Answer the following questions in one sentence. (4%)1. What will the future home or office look like?2. How do you think the future electric appliances will work? V. Reading prehension (40%)A. Multiple ChoicePassage 1INKSTAINED RICHES:Mencken, the Daddy of BadBoy Punditry In his essay on . Mencken entitled “Saving a Whale,” journalist Murray Kempton points out that “whales are the only mammals that the museums have never managed to stuff and mount in their original skins.” To Kempton, Mencken is a very great whale who, almost 40 years after his death, still defies critical taxonomy. That is putting it politely. Mencken in death provokes as much vitriol as he did while living. he has been called a racist, a humanitarian, an arch conservative and a great liberal, and the thorny fact is, he was all those things. Nobody knows what to make of a man who turned his diary into a manure pile of antiSemitism at the same time he was working diligently to get Jews out of Hitler’s Germany. Biographers have been struggling to take Mencken’s measure since the 1920s. Fred Hobson’s Mencken...is the latest and best attempt. Hobson is the first of Mencken’s biographers to use all the posthumously published diaries, where the “Sage of Baltimore” vented his most odious bigotries and where he most clearly revealed the alienation and loneliness at the heart of his personality. Hobson does not try to resolve the contradictions in Mencken’s personality. Instead, he wisely uses this new material to portray Mencken as a man forever in conflict with himself, the carefree cutup coexisting with the control freak, the ic with the tragedian. Eventually—at least a decade before the 1948 stroke that robbed him of the ability to read or write—Mencken’s darker angels took charge of his soul. In 1942, he wrote, “I have spent all of my 62 years here, but I still find it impossible to fit myself into the accepted patterns of American life and thought. After all these years, I remain a foreigner.” But as Hobson points out, the darkness was there all along, and the miracle is that out of this almost paralyzing bleakness, Mencken was once able to spin exuberant, lacerating prose that is as funny as it is essentially serious. At the peak of his powers, in the ‘20s and early ‘30s, he slaughtered every sacred cow in sight, from Prohibition to fundamentalism. But as hard as he could be on hillbillies and Klansmen, he was even harder on professors: “Of a thousand head of such dull drudges not ten, with their doctors’ dissertations behind them, ever contribute so much as a flyspeck to the sum of human knowledge.” Coining phrases like “the Bible belt” and aphorisms like “Democracy is the theory that the mon people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard,” Mencken left his indecorous fingerprints all over American thought and speech. As a newspaper columnist, a magazine