Interdisciplinary Integrated Question Training for Year 10 CCEA Law | 跨学科综合题型训练

📚 Interdisciplinary Integrated Question Training for Year 10 CCEA Law | 跨学科综合题型训练

Studying law at Year 10 level under CCEA requires more than just memorising statutes and cases. You also need to understand how legal rules connect with morality, politics, economics, and history. Interdisciplinary questions are designed to test this deeper understanding. This article provides structured guidance and practical examples to help you master such questions and boost your exam confidence.

在 CCEA 十年级法律课程中，学习法律不仅需要记忆法规与案例，还要理解法律规则如何与道德、政治、经济和历史相联系。跨学科问题正是为了考查这种深层理解而设计的。本文提供系统化指导和实例练习，帮助你掌握这类题型，提升应考信心。

1. Understanding Interdisciplinary Questions in Law | 理解法律中的跨学科问题

An interdisciplinary question in law asks you to analyse a legal issue by drawing on knowledge from other subjects, such as ethics, politics, sociology, or economics. For example, you might be asked to evaluate whether a law is morally justifiable or to discuss how economic factors influence the creation of legislation. These questions go beyond simple description and require you to form arguments supported by reasoning from multiple perspectives.

法律中的跨学科问题要求你借助伦理、政治、社会学或经济学等其他学科的知识来分析法律议题。例如，你可能会被要求评价某项法律在道德上是否正当，或者探讨经济因素如何影响立法。这类问题超越简单描述，需要你从多角度形成有据可循的论证。

The CCEA Year 10 specification encourages students to develop critical thinking by recognising that law does not operate in a vacuum. Judges, legislators, and citizens all consider wider societal values when making legal decisions. Familiarising yourself with this approach early on will strengthen your essay responses and case study evaluations.

CCEA 十年级教学大纲鼓励学生培养批判性思维，认识到法律并非在真空中运行。法官、立法者和公民在作出法律决定时都会考量更广泛的社会价值。尽早熟悉这种思维方式，将增强你的论文回答和案例分析能力。

Typical interdisciplinary command words include 'Discuss', 'Evaluate', 'To what extent', and 'Assess'. These signal that you should go beyond stating the law and engage with underlying principles or consequences.

典型的跨学科指令词包括“讨论”“评价”“在多大程度上”及“评估”。这些词提示你不仅要陈述法律，还要探讨内在原则或后果。

2. Why Interdisciplinary Training Matters | 跨学科训练为何重要

Interdisciplinary training develops your ability to see connections between legal rules and real‑life contexts. It prepares you for assessments that require higher‑order thinking, such as evaluating the effectiveness of a law or proposing reforms. According to CCEA mark schemes, top‑band answers demonstrate a sophisticated understanding that integrates different areas of knowledge.

跨学科训练能培养你发现法律规则与现实生活之间联系的能力，为需要高阶思维的评估做好准备，比如评价一项法律的效力或提出改革建议。根据 CCEA 评分方案，高分段答案展现出对不同知识领域的综合理解。

Moreover, this skill is not only useful for exams. Citizens in a democratic society need to understand how law interacts with moral values and economic policies. Learning to think across subjects helps you become a more informed and active participant in your community.

此外，这项技能不仅在考试中有用。民主社会中的公民需要理解法律如何与道德价值观及经济政策互动。学会跨学科思维，有助于你成为社区中更有见识、更积极的参与者。

Research in education shows that students who regularly tackle interdisciplinary problems retain knowledge longer and apply concepts more flexibly. Even at Year 10, building this habit will give you a significant advantage in future legal studies.

教育研究表明，经常处理跨学科问题的学生记忆知识更持久，概念运用也更灵活。即使在十年级，养成这一习惯也会为你的未来法律学习带来巨大优势。

3. Legal and Moral Issues | 法律与道德议题

One of the most common cross‑subject pairings is law and morality. Not everything that is immoral is illegal, and not every law is morally acceptable to everyone. When approaching a question on this theme, define the legal position clearly first, then identify the moral arguments for and against it.

最常见的跨学科组合之一就是法律与道德。并非所有不道德的行为都是违法的，也并非每项法律在所有人看来都是道德上可接受的。处理这类主题的问题时，首先清晰界定法律立场，然后找出支持和反对的道德论点。

Consider the example of euthanasia. UK law prohibits assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. However, moral debates centre on autonomy, dignity, and the sanctity of life. In an interdisciplinary answer, you would outline the legal rule and then discuss competing ethical perspectives, perhaps referencing the views of philosophers or religious teachings.

以安乐死为例。英国法律依据《1961 年自杀法》和《2009 年验尸官和司法法》禁止协助自杀。然而，道德辩论围绕自主权、尊严和生命的神圣性展开。在跨学科回答中，你要概述法律规则，然后讨论相互竞争的伦理观点，或许可以引用哲学家或宗教教义的看法。

Another example is the age of criminal responsibility. In England and Wales, the age is 10, which some argue is too low given the moral development of children. You could discuss psychological research on moral reasoning and compare it with other countries' approaches. This shows the examiner you can link law with moral and scientific insights.

另一个例子是刑事责任年龄。在英格兰和威尔士，该年龄为 10 岁，一些人认为鉴于儿童的道德发展，这个年龄过低。你可以讨论关于道德推理的心理学研究，并将其与其他国家的做法作比较。这向考官展示了你能够将法律与道德及科学见解联系起来。

A structured paragraph could begin: "Legally, the position is clear under statute X. Morally, however, there are strong objections based on principle Y. On the other hand, supporters argue Z." Always balance perspectives to achieve high marks.

结构化段落可以这样开头：“从法律上讲，根据某法规，立场是明确的。然而，在道德上，基于某原则存在强烈反对。另一方面，支持者则论证某观点。”始终要平衡各方观点以获取高分。

4. Law and Politics Connections | 法律与政治的联系

Law and politics are inseparable because Parliament creates the law, and the government influences the legislative agenda. When answering an interdisciplinary question involving politics, it is essential to explain the constitutional framework before delving into political arguments.

法律与政治密不可分，因为议会制定法律，政府影响立法议程。在回答涉及政治的跨学科问题时，必须先解释宪法框架，然后再深入政治论证。

For instance, a question on the Human Rights Act 1998 can easily become a political debate about parliamentary sovereignty versus the protection of individual rights. You might discuss how judges can issue a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4, but Parliament remains free to ignore it. Politically, some argue that unelected judges should not override the will of elected MPs, while others believe fundamental rights must be safeguarded from majority rule.

例如，一个关于《1998 年人权法》的问题很容易演变为关于议会主权与个人权利保护的政治辩论。你可以讨论法官如何根据第 4 条发布不相容声明，但议会仍有不予理会的自由。在政治上，一些人认为非民选法官不应凌驾于民选议员意志之上，而另一些人则坚信基本权利必须受到保护，免遭多数统治的侵害。

You could also examine how pressure groups and public opinion shape lawmaking. The legalisation of same‑sex marriage in 2014 was not only a legal change but also a political victory after years of campaigning. Linking case law with political movements demonstrates interdisciplinary fluency.

你还可以审视压力团体和舆论如何影响立法。2014 年同性婚姻合法化不仅是法律变革，更是多年运动后的政治胜利。将判例法同政治运动联系起来，体现出跨学科能力。

When writing, use terms such as 'separation of powers', 'judicial review', and 'representative democracy' accurately to show your understanding of political concepts that underpin legal structures.

写作时，准确使用“权力分立”“司法审查”和“代议制民主”等术语，以展现你对支撑法律结构的政治概念的理解。

5. Law, Economics, and Society | 法律、经济与社会

Economic considerations frequently influence the creation and enforcement of law. For interdisciplinary questions, you can explore how financial costs, market efficiency, and social welfare connect to legal rules. Consider the legal regulation of business, consumer protection, or environmental law.

经济考量常常影响法律的制定与执行。对于跨学科问题，你可以探讨财务成本、市场效率和社会福利如何与法律规则相连。想想对商业的法律监管、消费者保护或环境法。

Take employment law as an example. The national minimum wage is a legal requirement that also has economic effects. While it aims to protect workers from exploitation, economists debate whether it leads to higher unemployment. An interdisciplinary answer would present the legal standard and then weigh the economic arguments using data or theoretical concepts like supply and demand.

以劳动法为例。国家最低工资是一项法律要求，同时也具有经济效应。虽然它旨在保护工人免受剥削，但经济学家争论它是否导致失业率上升。跨学科回答将给出法律标准，然后使用数据或供需等理论概念来权衡经济论点。

Social factors also interact with economic ones. Laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace, such as the Equality Act 2010, aim to achieve social justice but impose costs on businesses for compliance. You could analyse these tensions in a balanced way, referencing both legal principles and economic efficiency.

社会因素也与经济因素相互作用。禁止工作场所歧视的法律，如《2010 年平等法》，旨在实现社会正义，但给企业带来合规成本。你可以平衡地分析这些紧张关系，既援引法律原则又兼顾经济效率。

Where possible, use simple statistics or well‑known studies to strengthen your argument. For example, citing that the UK national minimum wage increased to £11.44 per hour in April 2024 (for workers aged 21 and over) can make your essay more concrete.

在可能的情况下，使用简单的统计数据或知名研究来加强论证。例如，引用英国国家最低工资在 2024 年 4 月升至每小时 11.44 英镑（适用于 21 岁及以上工人），可以使你的文章更具体。

6. Using Historical Cases | 运用历史案例

History provides rich material for interdisciplinary law questions. Understanding the historical context of a legal principle helps you evaluate its relevance today and identify how societal values have changed. CCEA often expects you to refer to key historical developments in the English legal system.

历史为跨学科法律问题提供了丰富的素材。理解一项法律原则的历史背景有助于你评估它今日的相关性，并识别社会价值观的变迁。CCEA 通常希望你提及英国法律制度的关键历史发展。

The evolution of the jury system is a perfect example. Originating in medieval England, trial by jury was once seen as a safeguard against arbitrary royal power. Today, debates continue about whether juries are still the best way to ensure fair trials, with critics citing low conviction rates in some complex fraud cases. An interdisciplinary answer would blend historical knowledge with contemporary arguments about cost and efficiency.

陪审团制度的演变就是一个完美的例子。起源于中世纪的英格兰，陪审团审判曾被视为防止王室专权的保障。今天，关于陪审团是否仍是确保公正审判的最佳方式的争论仍在继续，批评者指出在某些复杂欺诈案件中定罪率偏低。跨学科回答将把历史知识与关于成本和效率的当代论点结合起来。

Another example is the history of capital punishment. Although abolished in the UK, the debates that led to its abolition involved moral, political, and criminological arguments. You could discuss how miscarriages of justice changed public opinion and influenced Parliament, linking law with sociology and ethics.

另一个例子是死刑的历史。尽管已在英国废除，但导致其废除的辩论涉及道德、政治和犯罪学的论证。你可以讨论司法误判如何改变了公众舆论并影响了议会，从而将法律与社会学和伦理学联系起来。

When mentioning historical cases, such as the Case of Proclamations (1611) for the principle that the monarch cannot change the law without Parliament, explain why this matters today. Showing the line from past to present strengthens the interdisciplinary depth of your argument.

在提及历史案例时，例如显示君主未经议会不得修改法律的《1611 年公告案》，要解释为什么这一点在今天仍然重要。展示从过去到现在的脉络，可以增强你论证的跨学科深度。

7. Critical Thinking and Analysis | 批判性思维与分析

Interdisciplinary questions demand that you think critically rather than just recall information. Critical thinking involves evaluating the strength of arguments, identifying assumptions, and recognising alternative viewpoints. In legal studies, this means looking beyond the black‑letter law to examine its justification and consequences.

跨学科问题要求你进行批判性思考，而不仅仅是回忆信息。批判性思维包括评估论证的力度、识别假设以及认识其他观点。在法律学习中，这意味着超越法律条文本身，审视其正当性和后果。

To practise, take a legal rule and ask yourself: Why does this rule exist? Whose interests does it serve? Are there unintended negative effects? For example, the law requiring wearing seat belts reduces road deaths, but some libertarians argue it infringes on personal freedom. An interdisciplinary thinker would present both the public safety rationale and the philosophical objection before forming a reasoned conclusion.

广告 / Sponsored

练习时，选取一条法律规则并问自己：这条规则为何存在？它服务于谁的利益？是否有意想不到的负面影响？例如，要求系安全带的法律减少了道路死亡，但一些自由意志主义者认为它侵犯了人身自由。跨学科思考者会先提出公共安全理由和哲学上的反对意见，再形成合理的结论。

You should also analyse the quality of evidence used to support certain legal positions. When politicians claim a new criminal law will reduce crime by 20%, ask what studies support that figure and whether alternative approaches, such as rehabilitation, might be more effective. This habit will help you construct evaluative responses that examiners reward.

你还应该分析用于支持特定法律立场的证据质量。当政客声称一部新刑法将减少 20% 的犯罪时，要问有哪些研究支持这一数字，以及替代方法（如改造）是否可能更有效。这种习惯将帮助你构建受考官青睐的评价性回答。

Remember to structure critical analysis clearly: state an argument, supply evidence or reasoning, acknowledge a counter‑argument, and then conclude with your own balanced judgement. This pattern works well for high‑mark questions.

请记住清晰地组织批判性分析：陈述论点，提供证据或推理，承认反驳意见，然后以你自己的平衡判断作结。此模式适用于高分数题目。

8. Structuring Your Answers | 结构化答题

A well‑structured answer is essential for success in interdisciplinary questions. CCEA exam reports regularly highlight that students who plan their essays score higher. Start with a short introduction that defines the key legal issue and sets out the interdisciplinary angle you will explore.

结构良好的答案是跨学科问题成功的关键。CCEA 考试报告经常强调，规划好论文的学生得分更高。以一个简短引言开头，定义关键法律问题，并阐明你将探讨的跨学科角度。

Next, present the legal framework precisely. Use specific statute names, case names, and legal principles. After establishing the law, move to the interdisciplinary analysis. You might dedicate one paragraph to moral aspects, another to political implications, and a third to economic or social effects, depending on the question.

接下来，精确地呈现法律框架。引用具体的法规名称、案例名称和法律原则。在确立法律之后，转向跨学科分析。根据问题，你可能用一个段落讨论道德层面，另一个段落讨论政治影响，第三个段落讨论经济或社会效应。

Each paragraph should follow the PEEL structure: Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link. The point introduces your argument. Evidence might be a case, statute, statistic, or philosophical principle. Explanation develops the reasoning; and the link connects back to the question or forward to the next point. This keeps your essay coherent.

每个段落应遵循 PEEL 结构：论点 (Point)、证据 (Evidence)、解释 (Explanation) 和连接 (Link)。论点引入你的观点。证据可以是案例、法规、统计数据或哲学原则。解释展开推理；连接则回扣问题或引出下一点。这样能保持文章连贯。

Finally, a conclusion should summarise the interdisciplinary tensions you have discussed and offer a final evaluative comment. Avoid introducing new arguments at this stage. Instead, answer the 'to what extent' part of the question clearly.

最后，结论应总结你讨论的跨学科紧张关系，并给出最终评价性意见。避免在此阶段引入新论点。相反，要清晰地回答问题的“在多大程度上”部分。

Practice writing under timed conditions using this structure. Over time, it will become second nature.

使用这种结构在限时条件下练习写作。久而久之，这会成为第二天性。

9. Sample Interdisciplinary Question 1 | 跨学科示例题1

Question: "Discuss the extent to which the law on protest in the UK strikes a fair balance between protecting public order and upholding freedom of expression. Use relevant legal, political, and moral perspectives."

问题：“讨论英国有关抗议的法律在多大程度上在保护公共秩序与维护表达自由之间取得了公平的平衡。运用相关的法律、政治和道德视角。”

Legal perspective: The Public Order Act 1986 allows police to impose conditions on protests if they may cause serious disorder, damage, or disruption. The Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly), requires any restriction to be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Recent legislation, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, has expanded police powers, for instance to impose conditions on noisy protests.

法律视角：《1986 年公共秩序法》允许警方在抗议可能造成严重混乱、破坏或干扰时对其施加条件。《1998 年人权法》纳入了第 10 条（表达自由）和第 11 条（集会自由），要求任何限制必须是合法、必要且合比例的。近期立法，如《2022 年警察、犯罪、量刑和法院法》，扩大了警察权力，例如对喧闹抗议施加条件。

Political perspective: Politically, the balance reflects tensions between government desire for order and civil liberties campaigners. Some MPs argue tougher laws prevent disruption to daily life, while critics claim the government is eroding the democratic right to protest. Pressure groups like Liberty highlight that broad powers risk being used disproportionately against marginalised voices.

政治视角：政治上看，这种平衡反映了政府维持秩序的愿望与公民自由运动者之间的紧张关系。一些议员认为更严格的法律能防止对日常生活的扰乱，而批评者则认为政府正在侵蚀民主抗议权利。像 Liberty 这样的压力团体指出，宽泛的权力有可能被不合比例地用于压制边缘声音。

Moral perspective: Morally, peaceful protest is seen by many as a legitimate expression of conscience. Philosophers like John Rawls argue that civil disobedience can be justified in a nearly just society when laws are perceived as unjust. Conversely, there is a moral duty to protect citizens from serious disruption or violence. Balancing these competing moral claims is a recurring challenge for lawmakers.

道德视角：道德上，和平抗议被许多人视为表达良知的正当方式。像约翰·罗尔斯这样的哲学家认为，在一个近乎正义的社会中，当人们认为法律不公正时，公民不服从可以是正当的。相反，保护公民免受严重扰乱或暴力侵害也是一种道德责任。平衡这些相互竞争的道德主张是立法者反复面临的挑战。

An evaluative conclusion might note that while the legal framework aims for proportionality, recent changes arguably tilt the balance too far in favour of public order, raising concerns about the future of civil liberties in the UK.

评价性结论可以指出，尽管法律框架旨在追求合比例性，但近期的变化可能过于偏向公共秩序，引发了对英国公民自由未来的担忧。

10. Sample Interdisciplinary Question 2 | 跨学科示例题2

Question: "Explain the legal rules on consent in medical treatment for minors and evaluate how effectively these rules balance the child's rights, parental responsibility, and medical expertise. Draw on legal, ethical, and social perspectives."

问题：“解释关于未成年人医疗同意权的法律规则，并评价这些规则如何有效地平衡儿童权利、父母责任和医学专业知识。运用法律、伦理和社会视角。”

Begin by outlining the law: under the Family Law Reform Act 1969, a 16- or 17-year-old can consent to medical treatment as if they were an adult. For under-16s, the Gillick competence test from Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) applies: a child can consent if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to appreciate what is proposed. However, this case also established that in refusal situations, the child's decision can be overridden by parental consent or a court order if it would lead to harm.

首先概述法律：根据《1969 年家庭法改革法》，16 至 17 岁的未成年人可如同成年人一样同意接受医疗。对于 16 岁以下者，适用 Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) 案中的 Gillick 能力测试：如果儿童具有足够的理解和智力来领会所提议的内容，即可表示同意。然而，该案也确立，在拒绝治疗的情形下，若会导致伤害，儿童的决定可被父母的同意或法院命令推翻。

Ethically, respect for autonomy supports allowing mature minors to decide, following the principle of self‑determination. Yet the ethical principle of beneficence – acting in the child's best interest – can justify restricting a child's refusal, especially in life-threatening situations. The tension between these principles is central to medico-legal ethics.

伦理上，尊重自主权支持允许成熟的未成年人自己决定，遵循自决原则。然而，行善的伦理原则——以儿童的最佳利益行事——可以证明限制儿童拒绝治疗是正当的，尤其是在危及生命的情况下。这些原则之间的紧张关系是医疗法律伦理的核心。

Socially, families and medical professionals often collaborate to reach consensus. Courts rarely intervene without serious disagreement. However, high-profile cases, such as those involving Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions, show the deep societal challenges when religious beliefs and medical science clash. The legal system generally prioritises the preservation of life once the child lacks Gillick competence to refuse.

在社会层面，家庭和医疗专业人员通常协作达成共识。法院很少在没有严重分歧的情况下介入。然而，一些引人注目的案件，例如涉及耶和华见证人拒绝输血的案例，展示了当宗教信仰与医学科学冲突时的深刻社会挑战。一旦儿童缺乏拒绝的 Gillick 能力，法律系统通常优先保护生命。

Your evaluation could conclude that the law provides a nuanced framework but is under constant ethical pressure, and that reform discussions often revolve around giving greater weight to the child's expressed wishes, even in refusal scenarios.

你的评价可以得出这样的结论：法律提供了一个细腻的框架，但持续承受伦理压力，而改革讨论常常围绕着在拒绝治疗的情形下给予儿童表达的意愿更大的权重展开。

11. Common Mistakes to Avoid | 常见错误避免

One frequent error is treating interdisciplinary questions as if they were pure law essays, ignoring the other perspectives required. You must not simply describe the law; you must actively engage with moral, political, or economic dimensions as the question demands. Always read the question carefully to identify how many perspectives are needed.

一个常见的错误是把跨学科问题当作纯粹的法律论文来对待，忽略了所要求的其他视角。你不能只描述法律，必须按照题目要求积极涉足道德、政治或经济维度。务必仔细读题，以确定需要多少视角。

Another mistake is making unsupported assertions. If you claim a law is 'fair' or 'unjust', provide criteria and evidence. Refer to legal principles, philosophical theories, or empirical data. Vague statements weaken your argument and limit marks.

另一个错误是做出无根据的断言。如果你声称某项法律是“公平的”或“不公正的”，要提供标准和证据。引述法律原则、哲学理论或实证数据。模糊的陈述会削弱论证并限制得分。

Avoid imbalance. Some students focus entirely on one side of the debate, forgetting to present counter‑arguments. High‑scoring answers acknowledge complexity and weigh competing viewpoints fairly. Even if your ultimate conclusion leans one way, show that you have considered alternatives.

避免失衡。一些学生完全专注于辩论的一方，忘记了提出反面论点。高分答案承认复杂性并公平地权衡对立观点。即使你的最终结论偏于一方，也要展示你考虑了其他可能性。

Finally, poor time management can cause you to rush the interdisciplinary analysis. Allocate a specific proportion of your time to planning, writing the legal section, exploring interdisciplinary angles, and concluding. Practising with a timer builds disciplined writing habits.

最后，时间管理不善可能导致你匆忙完成跨学科分析。给规划、撰写法律部分、探讨跨学科角度和结论分配特定比例的时间。计时练习可以培养规律性的写作习惯。

12. Final Tips for Success | 成功秘诀

Build a bank of reusable examples from current affairs, history, and philosophy. For instance, the debate over minimum sentencing laws can serve both a political (judicial discretion vs. parliamentary sovereignty) and a moral (proportionality of punishment) analysis. Having a few well-understood case studies reduces preparation stress.

从时事、历史和哲学中建立一个可重复使用的例子库。例如，关于最低量刑法律的辩论既可用于政治分析（司法裁量权 vs 议会主权），也可用于道德分析（惩罚的相称性）。有几个理解透彻的案例研究可以减轻备考压力。

Use specialist vocabulary accurately but don't overcomplicate. Terms like 'proportionality', 'rule of law', 'autonomy', and 'utilitarianism' show disciplinary depth when used correctly. However, it is far better to write clearly and precisely than to misuse complex terminologies.

准确使用专业词汇，但不要过度复杂化。“合比例性”“法治”“自主权”和“功利主义”等术语在正确使用时显示出学科深度。然而，清晰准确地写作比误用复杂术语要好得多。

Peer discussion can be incredibly helpful. Explaining a legal issue from multiple perspectives to a study partner reinforces your own understanding and reveals gaps in your reasoning. Consider forming a small study group dedicated to interdisciplinary practice questions.

同伴讨论非常有帮助。从多个角度向学习伙伴解释一个法律问题，可以巩固你自己的理解并揭示推理中的不足。可以考虑成立一个专注于跨学科练习的小型学习小组。

Finally, remember that examiners are looking for a holistic argument, not a perfect solution. The law often deals with intractable conflicts. Showing that you recognise the difficulty of striking a balance, while still offering a reasoned conclusion, will set your answer apart.

最后，记住考官寻找的是一个整体论证，而非完美的解决方案。法律经常处理棘手的冲突。展示你认识到取得平衡的困难，同时仍能提供一个有理有据的结论，会使你的答案脱颖而出。

Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）