Part A Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. (40 points) Some countries are more populous some have more crime. But in no other country are crime fighters quite so knowledgeable about citizens as in Britain. On January 4th a boastful Home Office detailed the triumphs of the world's biggest forensic DNA database, which holds samples from more than 5% of the entire population of England and Wales. Recent changes to the rules governing the database mean that it may eventually hold profiles from more than a fifth of all adults. Once a country starts storing DNA samples from criminals it is hard to resist the urge to expand the collection. When the National DNA Database (NDNAD) was set up, in 1995, samples could only be taken from those charged with 'recordable' offences. If a suspect was not tried, or was freed, the sample had to be destroyed and the profile removed from the database. That law was abandoned in 2001, after two men who had been convicted of murder and rape had their cases overturned on appeal—the DNA evidence against them related to crimes they had not beep convicted of, and so ought to have been removed from the database. The change has led to the retention of around 200,000 samples that world previously have been destroyed. Some 7,591 of these were subsequently matched with samples from crime scenes, including those from 88 murders and 116 rapes. And since April 2004, police have been able to take and keep samples from anyone arrested for a recordable offence, even if charges do not ensue. The main reason the NDNAD is larger than databases in other countries is that Britain was first to start using DNA as an investigative tool. So not only has it had time to collect more DNA samples, but it has also had longer to appreciate the sheer power of a large database. 'Every other country that does databasing will get to where Britain is now,' says Chris Asplen, a consultant to law enforcement agencies and governments on DNA technology. The increased use of DNA evidence has given rise to intriguing new courtroom defences. DNA tests are now so sensitive that they can detect if a person has sneezed or sweated near an object. John Swain, a barrister with a background in biochemistry, recently defended a man charged with armed robbery. The defendant's DNA was on the gun that was used, but the defence argued that he might just have been near it after he had been to the gym, and that an errant bead of sweat could account for the presence of his DNA on a weapon he had never handled. He was declared not guilty. The text mainly talks about