Kuis Med basing Project

                  Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?

                The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.

                It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit.

what is the topic of the passage?

a. The unique of blackmail
b. The effect of blackmail
c. The payment of the blackmail
d. The punishment of the blackmail
e. The benefit of the blackmail

                 Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?

                The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.

                It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit.

The word obtain in paragraph 3 line 3 means?

a. Punish
b. Law
c. Advantage
d. Get
e. Involve

                Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?

                The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.

                It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit.

The paragraph preceding the passage most likely discuss?

a. Explanation about canada’s and U.S. blackmail
b. The blackmail theory
c. Why criminal is involves with blackmail
d. The definition of the third party
e. Another state

                Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?

                The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.

                It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit.

 

The paragraph following the passage most likely discuss?

a. The example of the victim
b. The explanation of why blackmail is legal
c. The explanation of why blackmail is illegal
d. Example of total benefit from the blackmail
e. How harm the blackmail could be

The first people we know created plays were the Ancient Greeks, about the year 500 B.C. They divided plays into two kinds: tragedy and comedy. This division is still used today. The best known Ancient Greek writers of plays are Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Some of their plays survived, and are still performed today.


These ancient Greek plays were performed outdoors in large amphitheaters, so that many people could see them. There were contests among the playwrights (people who write plays are called playwrights) and the winner would get a prize.


The Greeks were full of brilliant ideas. They used mechanical devices like trap doors and the Machina: a crane for winching gods on and off the stage. They had a Greek chorus that offered information to help the audience follow the performance. The chorus comments on themes, and shows how an audience might react to the drama. The players wore masks. Illustrations on vases show helmet-like masks, covering the entire face and head, with holes for the eyes and a small aperture for the mouth, plus a wig. The mask was to ‘melt’ into the face and allow the actor to vanish into the role. Therefore, onlookers did not think about the actor, but thought about the character.

The paragraph preceding the passage most likely discuss?

(A) the actor of the plays
(B) why Ancient Greece excels in art?
(C) history of plays in Ancient Greece
(D) an explanation about the people who create ancient Greeks
(E) history of art in Ancient Greece

The first people we know created plays were the Ancient Greeks, about the year 500 B.C. They divided plays into two kinds: tragedy and comedy. This division is still used today. The best known Ancient Greek writers of plays are Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Some of their plays survived, and are still performed today.


These ancient Greek plays were performed outdoors in large amphitheaters, so that many people could see them. There were contests among the playwrights (people who write plays are called playwrights) and the winner would get a prize.


The Greeks were full of brilliant ideas. They used mechanical devices like trap doors and the Machina: a crane for winching gods on and off the stage. They had a Greek chorus that offered information to help the audience follow the performance. The chorus comments on themes, and shows how an audience might react to the drama. The players wore masks. Illustrations on vases show helmet-like masks, covering the entire face and head, with holes for the eyes and a small aperture for the mouth, plus a wig. The mask was to ‘melt’ into the face and allow the actor to vanish into the role. Therefore, onlookers did not think about the actor, but thought about the character.

The word survived in line 4 first paragraph means?

a. Vanish
b. Gone
c. Dead
d. Alive
e. Burn

The first people we know created plays were the Ancient Greeks, about the year 500 B.C. They divided plays into two kinds: tragedy and comedy. This division is still used today. The best known Ancient Greek writers of plays are Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Some of their plays survived, and are still performed today.


These ancient Greek plays were performed outdoors in large amphitheaters, so that many people could see them. There were contests among the playwrights (people who write plays are called playwrights) and the winner would get a prize.


The Greeks were full of brilliant ideas. They used mechanical devices like trap doors and the Machina: a crane for winching gods on and off the stage. They had a Greek chorus that offered information to help the audience follow the performance. The chorus comments on themes, and shows how an audience might react to the drama. The players wore masks. Illustrations on vases show helmet-like masks, covering the entire face and head, with holes for the eyes and a small aperture for the mouth, plus a wig. The mask was to ‘melt’ into the face and allow the actor to vanish into the role. Therefore, onlookers did not think about the actor, but thought about the character.

The word mask in line 5 first paragraph 3 means?

a. Disguise
b. Face
c. Clear
d. Melt
e. shows

The first people we know created plays were the Ancient Greeks, about the year 500 B.C. They divided plays into two kinds: tragedy and comedy. This division is still used today. The best known Ancient Greek writers of plays are Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Some of their plays survived, and are still performed today.


These ancient Greek plays were performed outdoors in large amphitheaters, so that many people could see them. There were contests among the playwrights (people who write plays are called playwrights) and the winner would get a prize.


The Greeks were full of brilliant ideas. They used mechanical devices like trap doors and the Machina: a crane for winching gods on and off the stage. They had a Greek chorus that offered information to help the audience follow the performance. The chorus comments on themes, and shows how an audience might react to the drama. The players wore masks. Illustrations on vases show helmet-like masks, covering the entire face and head, with holes for the eyes and a small aperture for the mouth, plus a wig. The mask was to ‘melt’ into the face and allow the actor to vanish into the role. Therefore, onlookers did not think about the actor, but thought about the character.

The paragraph following the passage most likely discuss?

(A) the actor of the plays
(B) how the actors were immersed into the character
(C) how the plays ended
(D) The prize of the winner
(E) The ideas of the Greece

The morning on August 14TH 2015, the silence in Nagasaki was broken only by a tolling bell. The Japanese city has marked 70 years since the dropping of the last atomic bomb on a civilian target in the closing days of World War II.


The memorial ceremony held at the Nagasaki Peace Park took place right under where the bomb exploded at 11:02 on August 9TH of 1945. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he was renewing his vows to push more nuclear disarmament.


The vow is “As the world’s only country to have experienced an atomic bomb during a war and in adherence to our three non-nuclear principles, I have renewed our vows to lead the world in the effort towards nuclear disarmament in order to achieve a world without nuclear weapons." It will always be stated in every ceremony of nuclear


The memory of US dropped atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” on Nagasaki three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima will never be forgotten. More than 150,000 died in the attack and from the subsequent radiation sickness. Japan surrendered six days later, ending World War II.

What is the paragraph following the passage most likely discuss?

(A) The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
(B) Shinzo Abe’s Nuclear Disarmament Plans
(C) The Impact of Nagasaki Atomic Bombing on Civilians
(D) Japan, After World War II
(E) Nagasaki Atomic Bombing

The morning on August 14TH 2015, the silence in Nagasaki was broken only by a tolling bell. The Japanese city has marked 70 years since the dropping of the last atomic bomb on a civilian target in the closing days of World War II.


The memorial ceremony held at the Nagasaki Peace Park took place right under where the bomb exploded at 11:02 on August 9TH of 1945. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he was renewing his vows to push more nuclear disarmament.


The vow is “As the world’s only country to have experienced an atomic bomb during a war and in adherence to our three non-nuclear principles, I have renewed our vows to lead the world in the effort towards nuclear disarmament in order to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.” It will always be stated in every ceremony of nuclear


The memory of US dropped atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” on Nagasaki three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima will never be forgotten. More than 150,000 died in the attack and from the subsequent radiation sickness. Japan surrendered six days later, ending World War II.

The word vow in paragraph 3 means?

a. Words
b. Attack
c. Surrender
d. Oath
e. Paragraphs

Another talent when your parents were growing up is learning to write in cursive was almost as common as learning to read or add. But in recent years, many schools have stopped teaching this flowing form of handwriting, also known as script.


Some people think that writing in cursive is outdated and that learning to type is a more important skill. They argue that most people now spend more time communicating by texting and emailing than they do writing by hand.


But not everyone wants to write off cursive. This fall for the first time in about 15 years, students at Green Primary School in Uniontown, Ohio, will be taught to write in cursive. Some schools in Tennessee and Missouri are also bringing cursive back.


Studies have shown that learning to write in script may improve critical-thinking skills and coordination. Kimberly Brueck is an administrator at Green Primary School. She says her school has another important reason for bringing cursive-writing lessons back into classrooms. “Children need to know how to sign their names!” she says.

The paragraph preceding the passage most likely discuss?

a. How parents growing up?
b. The importance of learning cursive
c. Why primary school didn’t learn cursive anymore
d. Childrent back to classroom
e. Different ability
{"name":"Kuis Med basing Project", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/Q21QXVVX","txt":"Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?                 The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.                 It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit.what is the topic of the passage?, Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?                 The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.                 It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit. The word obtain in paragraph 3 line 3 means?, Different countries like Canadian and United States has a different common law, blackmail in there is unique among major crimes: no one has yet adequately explained why it ought to be illegal. The heart of the problem-known as the blackmail paradox is that two acts, each of which is legally permissible separately, become illegal when combined. If I threaten to expose a criminal act or embarrassing private information unless I am paid money, I have committed blackmail. But the right to free speech protects my right to make such a disclosure, and in many circumstances, I have a legal right to seek money. So why is it illegal to combine them?                 The lack of a successful theory of blackmail has damaging consequences: drawing a clear line between legal and illegal acts has proved impossible without one. Consequently, most blackmail statutes broadly prohibit behavior that no one really believes is criminal and rely on the good judgment of prosecutors not to enforce relevant statutes precisely as written.                 It is possible, however, to articulate a coherent theory of blackmail. The key to the wrongness of the blackmail transaction is its triangular structure. The blackmailer obtains what he wants by using a supplementary leverage, leverage that depends upon a third party. The blackmail victim pays to avoid being harmed by persons other than the blackmailer. For example, when a blackmailer threatens to turn in a criminal unless paid money, the blackmailer is bargaining with the state’s chip. Thus, blackmail is criminal because it involves the misuse of a third party for the blackmailer’s own benefit. The paragraph preceding the passage most likely discuss?","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}
Powered by
Quiz Maker
Powered by: Quiz Maker