Notes: Line 3: Line 5: Line 6: Line 8: Line 12: Line 15: Line 32: Line 36: e-commerce escalating custody confusing prospective facilitator scam practitioner - - - - - - - -
the buying and selling of goods and services online becoming greater, worse, more serious
the legal right to take care of or keep somebody difficult to understand; not clear
expected to become something
a person who helps somebody do something more easily a clever and dishonest plan for making money
a person who regularly does a particular activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
The way the London newspaper told it, the story of how two adorable, U.S.born infant girls got to Britain wasa shocking tale of baby-selling on the Internet – even Tony Blair, Prime Minister, gave his opinion, saying he found this type of e-commerce “absolutely bad and unacceptable.” He had a point, since large sums supposedly changed hands when the twins, Kiara and Keyara Wecker, were offered for adoption. But the real story was an escalating custody battle between two couples, one British and the other American, who seemed equally desperate to make the little girls their own. To make matters worse, the girls’ birthmother last week announced she wants them back, turning a confusing case into a three-way fight that seemed to make a fair decision impossible.
At the weekend, anyway, the twins themselves were in the care of social workers in Wales – taken from their British adoptive parents, Alan and Judith Kilshaw, while authorities investigated the situation. The facts are complex. The girls’ American prospective adoptive parents, Richard and Vickie Allen of Highland, Calif., had Kiara and Keyara in their home for about two months last fall. They signed a pre-adoption agreement with the babies’ birthmother, Tranda Wecker of St. Louis, and agreed to pay $8,500 in fees to the adoption facilitator, a San Diego woman named Tina Johnson. Then came a disagreement over legal details and money, and the Allens stopped payment on a $2,500 check. Wecker asked to see her children one last time. According to Richard Allen, she and Johnson picked up the girls and disappeared. The twins were handed over to the Kilshaws in San Diego. The Kilshaws – who reportedly paid Johnson more than $11,000 in fees - then drove to Arkansas, where they adopted the babies in a court hearing, later renaming them Belinda and Kimberly.
Very unhappy at the loss, the Allens took their complaint to authorities. Now, the FBI is investigating the transaction as possible Internet wire cheating. The Allens also hired a lawyer, John Giffen, who defends the transaction. Giffen says the Allens “weren’t buying a baby. They want other children and they’re trying to do it the proper way. And so did the Kilshaws – they didn't do anything wrong.” Giffen says he has been in touch with Tranda Wecker and her ex-husband and now hopes to “sit down [with them] and decide what’s best for these kids.” He said the suggestion that Wecker “has been selling her babies is untrue. As far as I know, she has not accepted money at all.” Wecker denied taking money. Johnson told a British reporter she has “done nothing wrong.”
The larger question is whether the Internet itself is somehow to blame – and the answer, according to most U.S. experts, is no. Adoption scams have been around for years, and while dishonest operators are certainly using the Web, respected agencies see it as a powerful tool to connect needy kids with new families. “I think what happened to these folks is horrible,” said Steven Kirsh, an Indianapolis adoption lawyer. “But there are always bad apples. If adoptive parents will use respected practitioners, this kind of thing won’t happen.”
From: Newsweek, January 29, 2001. Slightly adapted
Lines 1 – 4: “The way … unacceptable.’ ” Which of the following statements about the two infant girls is not true?
A They were American by birth. B They were British by birth. C They were cute babies. D They were young.
2
Lines 1 – 4: “The way … unacceptable.’ ” The London newspaper told the story in such a way that it may be considered to be very A exciting.
B strange. C unbelievable. D untrue.
3
We may say that the word “even” in line 2 … the shocking character of the tale.
Which of the following does not fit? A exaggerates
B points to C shows D stresses
4
Lines 2 – 4: “… even … unacceptable.’ ” In these lines Tony Blair expresses his A approval.
B disapproval. C guilt.
D shame.
Line 4: “He had a point … .”
This phrase is similar in meaning to: his idea was A correct. B important. C pointless. D unimportant. 6
… “this type of e-commerce” … (line 3) refers to using the internet to
A deal in babies.
B deal in only infant girls. C show off babies.
D show off only infant girls. 7
The word “since” in line 4 introduces a A conclusion.
B purpose. C reason. D result.
8
The phrase “large sums … changed hands” (line 4) means: large sums
A were changed in one hand and then in the other.
B were demanded and offered. C were paid and received.
D were seen in one hand and then in the other.
Lines 5 – 7: “But … own.”
From these lines we may conclude that the most important part of the story is that A the fight for the babies became more serious.
B Tony Blair himself gave his opinion on the case.
C two couples were ready to fight for the babies.
D two infant girls were sold at the same time.
10 Lines 5 – 7: “But … own.”
From these lines we may conclude that both the British and the American couple were … to get/getting the little girls.
Which of the following does not fit? A eager
B hesitating C longing
D looking forward 11
The word “equally” (line 6) is similar in meaning to a /the … degree.
A certain B greater C lesser D same
12
The word “matters” in line 7 is similar in meaning to the following except
A problem. B report. C situation. D things.
Lines 7 – 9: “To make … impossible.” We may say that a solution to the case of the girls is … to find. A difficult B easy C impossible D ready 14
Lines 8 – 9: “ … turning … impossible.” The case is referred to as a three-way fight because
A a mother and her two babies were involved.
B an adopter and her adopted babies were involved.
C three parties were involved. D three persons were involved.
15
Lines 10 – 12: “At … situation.”
It is clear that the twins were placed in a … place awaiting a decision.
A distant B neutral C remote D secret
16
Lines 10 – 12: “At … situation.”
These lines indicate that the twins were in the care of social workers because the authorities A considered investigating the adoptive parents.
B considered looking into the matter. C were investigating the adoptive parents. D were looking into the matter.
Lines 12 – 21: “The facts … Kimberly.” Having read these lines we … how complex the facts are.
Which of the following does not fit? A realize
B see
C understand
D wonder 18
Lines 12 – 17: “The girls’ … check.” When the Allens signed the pre-adoption agreement, they probably … to discuss everything in detail.
A disregarded the advice B failed
C ignored the advice D refused
19
The word “Then” in line 16 is used to introduce the/ a … event.
A next B past C present D previous
20
Lines 17 – 18: “Wecker … disappeared.” We may say that Wecker used a(n) … reason to take the twins from the Allens.
A absurd B false C senseless D sensible
Lines 20 – 21: “ … drove … Kimberly.” These lines indicate that the babies A had nicknames before the adoption. B had to be renamed after the adoption. C were adopted according to their wishes. D were adopted according to the law.
22
Lines 22 – 24: “Very unhappy … transaction.” From these lines we may conclude that the Allens
A asked authorities to bring the twins back. B made sure that the twins came to no harm.
C took two steps to get the twins back. D want the FBI to investigate what went wrong.
23
Lines 22 – 23: “Now … cheating.”
We may say that the FBI … that the transaction is a case of Internet wire cheating.
A is convinced B is told C knows D suspects 24
Lines 23 – 26: “The Allens … wrong.’ ”
From these lines we may conclude the following.
A As a lawyer, Giffen is used to defending transactions.
B As a lawyer, Giffen knows exactly how to defend transactions.
C Giffen thinks nothing is wrong with the transaction.
D Giffen thinks there is too much criticism on the transaction.
Lines 24 – 25: “Giffen says … children …”
These lines indicate that the Allens A already have children.
B already have twin boys. C could get no other children. D could have no other children.
26
Lines 24 – 26: “Giffen says … wrong.’ ” These lines indicate that Giffen
A knew not only the Allens but the Kilshaws as well.
B thought that the two couples tried to do things right.
C was asked to defend both the Allens and the Kilshaws.
D would be paid by both the Allens and the Kilshaws.
27
Lines 26 – 27: “Giffen … ex-husband … ”
These lines suggest that Giffen
A had to contact the twins’ parents frequently. B planned to seek contact with the twins’ parents.
C sought contact with the twins’ parents. D used to have contact with the twins’ parents.
28
Line 27: “… and now … kids.’ ”
We may say that to Giffen … is important. A being in touch with the twins’ parents B hoping to sit down with the twins’ parents C the interest of the twins’ parents
D the well-being of the twins
Lines 27 – 29: “He said … money.” These lines indicate that Giffen … that/ if Wecker was telling the truth.
A believes B doubts
C has evidence D wonders
30
Lines 29 – 30: “Johnson … wrong.’ ”
What Johnson wants to say is that she had done nothing
A others would not do. B she would not do again. C to be ashamed of. D to go into hiding.
31
Lines 31 – 32: “The larger … no.”
These lines suggest that some experts think that somehow the Internet … the problem regarding the adoption of the twins.
A could have avoided B could have solved C had caused
D had worsened
32
Line 32: “Adoption scams … years … ” These words tell us the following about adoption scams.
A They are quite normal. B They have occurred before. C They now occur frequently. D They will never stop.
Lines 32 – 34: “… while dishonest … families.” These lines indicate that the Web
A cannot be used with the best of intentions. B is not always used with the best of
intentions.
C is regarded the only way to connect needy kids with new families.
D should be regarded the only way to connect needy kids with new families.
34
Lines 34 – 35: “ ‘I think … lawyer.” These lines indicate that Steven Kirsh A admired the couples.
B knew exactly what the couples went through.
C sympathized with the couples. D tried to be of some assistance to the couples.
Lines 35 – 36: “ ‘But … happen.’ ”
We may say that in a way Steven Kirsh wanted to … adoptive parents.
A amaze B shock C surprise
