考研英語法律類閱讀理解專項訓練
專門做法律類的閱讀理解，突破自己考研英語的這一塊。下面是本站小編給大家整理的考研英語法律類閱讀理解專項訓練，供大家參閱!
By almost every measure, Paul Pfingst is an unsentimental prosecutor. Last week the San Diego County district attorney said he fully intends to try suspect Charles Andrew Williams, 15, as an adult for the Santana High School shootings. Even before the tragedy, Pfingst had stood behind the controversial California
law that mandates treating murder suspects as young as 14 as adults.
So nobody would have wagered that Pfingst would also be the first D.A. in the U.S. to launch his very own Innocence Project. Yet last June, Pfingst told his attorneys to go back over old murder and rape convictions and see if any unravel with newly developed DNA-testing tools. In other words, he wanted to revisit past victories--this time playing for the other team. "I think people misunderstand being conservative for being biased," says Pfingst. "I consider myself a pragmatic guy, and I have no interest in putting innocent people in jail."
Around the U.S., flabbergasted defense attorneys and their jailed clients cheered his move. Among prosecutors, however, there was an awkward pause. After all, each DNA test costs as much as $5,000. Then there's the unspoken risk: if dozens of innocents turn up, the D.A. will have indicted his shop.
But nine months later, no budgets have been busted or prosecutors ousted. Only the rare case merits review. Pfingst's team considers convictions before 1993, when the city started routine DNA testing. They discard cases if the defendant has been released. Of the 560 remaining files, they have re-examined 200, looking for cases with biological evidence and defendants who still claim innocence.
They have identified three so far. The most compelling involves a man serving 12 years for molesting a girl who was playing in his apartment. But others were there at the time. Police found a small drop of saliva on the victim's shirt--too small a sample to test in 1991. Today that spot could free a man. Test results are due any day. Inspired by San Diego, 10 other counties in the U.S. are starting DNA audits.
By Amanda Ripley ez ncisco sijevic rtwell; Lisa McLaughlin; Joseph Pierro; Josh Tyrangiel and Sora Song
注(1)本文選自Time; 03/19/2001, Vol. 157 Issue 11, p62, 1p, 2c, 3bw
注(2)本文習題命題模仿對象2004年真題text 1.
did Pfingst carry out his own Innocence Project?
[A]By getting rid of his bias against the suspects.
[B]By revisiting the past victories.
[C]By using the newly developed DNA-testing tools.
[D]By his cooperation with his attorneys.
h of the following can be an advantage of Innocence Project?
[A]To help correct the wrong judgments.
[B]To oust the unqualified prosecutors.
[C]To make the prosecutors in an awkward situation.
[D]To cheer up the defense attorneys and their jailed clients.
expression “flabbergasted”(Line 1, Paragraph 3) most probably means _______.
[A]excited
[B]competent
[C]embarrassed
[D]astounded
was Pfingst an unsentimental prosecutor?
[A]He intended to try a fifteen-year old suspect.
[B]He had no interest in putting the innocent in jail.
[C]He supported the controversial California law.
[D]He wanted to try suspect as young as fourteen.
h of the following is not true according to the text?
[A]Pfingst’s move didn’t have a great coverage.
[B] Pfingst’s move had both the positive and negative effect.
[C] Pfingst’s move didn’t work well.
[D]Pfingst’s move greatly encouraged the jailed prisoners.
答案：CADBC
篇章剖析
本文采用的是記敘文的模式。第一段指出芬斯特作爲一位鐵面無私的檢查官的一些做法;第二段指出芬斯特實施“清白計劃”的打算及做法;第三段指出實施“清白計劃”造成的反應以及可能存在的問題;第四段和第五段是實施“清白計劃”的結果和影響。
詞彙註釋
prosecutor [5prRsIkju:tE(r)]n.檢察官 ,檢察員,起訴人,原告
controversial [kRntrE5v:F(E)l]adj.爭論的, 爭議的
mandate [5mAndeIt]v.批准制訂一個訓令，如通過法律;發佈命令或要求：
wager [5weIdVE(r)]v.下賭注, 保證
conviction [kEn5vIkF(E)n]n.定罪, 宣告有罪
unravel[Qn5rAv(E)l]v. 闡明, 解決
flabbergast[5flAbE^B:st; (?@) -^Ast]v.<口>使大吃一驚, 啞然失色, 使目瞪口呆
indict[In5daIt]v.起訴, 控告, 指控, 告發
bust[bQst]v.破產或缺錢
oust[aJst]v.剝奪, 取代, 驅逐
discard[dI5skB:d]v.拋開;遺棄;廢棄
molest[mE5lest]v.騷亂, 困擾, 調戲
saliva[sE5laIvE]n.口水, 唾液
難句突破
before the tragedy, Pfingst had stood behind the controversial California law that mandates treating murder suspects as young as 14 as adults.
主體句式：…Pfingst had stood behind …
結構分析：Even before the tragedy是本句的時間狀語;主句是Pfingst had stood behind…;that 引導的賓語從句修飾law;在從句中，as…as是一詞組，意思是“和…一樣”;出現的第三個as是介詞，意思是“作爲”。
句子譯文：甚至在這場悲劇發生之前芬斯特就支持加利福尼亞州的一項頗有爭議的法律。這項法律規定，以成人身份受審的謀殺嫌疑犯的最低年齡可以降到十四歲。
題目分析
1.答案爲C，屬事實細節題。文中對應信息“Pfingst told his attorneys to go back over old murder and rape convictions and see if any unravel with newly developed DNA-testing tools.”是對第二段第一句的補充說明。
2.答案爲A，屬推理判斷題。從上下文我們可以得知，實施“清白計劃”就是使用先進的DNA技術來重新審理過去的案件當中可能存在的冤案錯案。
3.答案爲D, 屬猜詞題。從第二段第一句話我們得知芬斯特可能是美國第一個實施非常獨特的“清白計劃”的人，因此他的做法很可能是令人感到吃驚的，從而可猜出該詞的含義。
4.答案爲B，屬推理判斷題。從第一段和第二段給出的事例我們可以看出，芬斯特不願放過任何一個犯罪的人，即便他的年齡還不算大;他也不願使無辜者蒙冤，即便案件已經審理。
5.答案爲C，屬推理判斷題。正因爲 “Pfingst’s move works well”,美國才又有“ten other counties are starting DNA audits”,而且，“no budgets have been busted or prosecutors ousted”.
參考譯文
重新審理，有錯必糾
用任何標準衡量，保羅·芬斯特都不是位感情用事的檢察官。上週，聖地亞哥縣地方檢察官說，他決意對桑塔納高中槍殺案疑犯—15歲的查爾斯·安德魯·威廉斯—作爲成人進行審訊。甚至在這場悲劇發生之前芬斯特就支持加利福尼亞州的一項頗有爭議的法律。這項法律規定，以成人身份受審的謀殺嫌疑犯的最低年齡可以降到十四歲。
誰也不能保證芬斯特會成爲美國第一個實施自己“清白計劃”的地方檢察官。然而，去年六月，芬斯特告訴手下的律師對過去的謀殺罪和強姦罪重新進行審理，看是否有能用最新的DNA檢驗工具揭開的無頭案件。換句話說，他想重新回顧過去的勝利——這回是爲了另一方。“我想人們把保守錯誤地理解成了心存偏見。”芬斯特說，“我認爲我自己是一個講究實際的人。我並無意把無辜的人送進監獄。”
在美國，那些啞然失色的辯護律師及其被收監的當事人爲他的舉動感到歡欣鼓舞。然而，在檢察官當中卻出現了令人尷尬的沉默。畢竟每一次DNA檢測的費用都高達5,000美元。這其中還存在隱含的風險——如果出現衆多的無罪受害者，地方檢察官肯定會自砸飯碗。
九個月後，並沒有出現資金短缺或檢察官被罷免的情況。只有極少數案件需要重新審理。該市是從1993年開始進行常規DNA檢測的，因此芬斯特的手下只考慮1993年前宣判的案件，並排除了那些被告已被釋放的案例。在560份現存檔案中，他們重新審理了200份，主要是尋找那些留有生物證據的案件和被告人仍聲明無罪的案件。
到目前爲止，他們只確定了三起案件。其中有一起案件最引人注意。案件的當事人因被控調戲一名在他的公寓玩耍的女孩而被判服刑12年。案發時還有他人在場。警方在受害人的襯衣上發現了一小滴唾液—這個樣本太小，無法在1991年檢驗。但在今天，那滴唾液卻能使一個人獲釋。檢驗結果什麼時候都可以拿到。受聖地亞哥的影響，美國又有10個縣開始用DNA對案件進行審覈。
考研英語法律類閱讀理解專項訓練：POOR GRADE FOR VOUCHERSA judge flunks Cleveland's use of vouchers for parochial schools. But will that stall the movement?
Walter Milancuk's public-school horror story began early, when his son Der
rick spent kindergarten in an overcrowded roomful of students who regularly fought in class and cursed the teacher. Milancuk wanted to transfer Derrick, but his salary as a forklift driver couldn't cover private-school tuition. Yet Milancuk found a way out, thanks to Cleveland's pioneering school-voucher program, which granted him close to $1,500 in state funds to help enroll Derrick at St. Stanislaus, a nearby Catholic school. Now Derrick wears a crisp uniform. His reading has improved. And the weekly Mass and Bible study have moved Derrick to say his daily prayers without prompting. Says his dad, "The school is really building his faith."
That may prove to be more of a curse than a blessing. Last week a federal judge struck down Cleveland's voucher program, ruling that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Citing Jefferson and Madison, Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. wrote that because four-fifths of the private schools participating in the voucher program are religious, the program robs parents of "genuine choice" between sectarian and secular schools, thus "advancing religion through government-supported religious indoctrination." The decision is the fourth in recent months to bar the use of vouchers in parochial schools, and voucher opponents--mainly teachers' unions and liberal interest groups--see it as a major victory.
Voucher backers--an unusual coalition of inner-city parents and conservative groups--retort that the judge misread both the Cleveland program and the First Amendment. They point out that Cleveland parents who don't like parochial schools can send their kids to the city's regular public schools, or to public charter schools and magnet schools. Clint Bolick, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, which defended the voucher program, says, "No one can compel a child into the program or into a religious school."
Despite its recent setbacks, the voucher movement is gaining ground in state legislatures and some state courts. This fall Florida started the first statewide voucher program. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the use of vouchers in parochial schools in Milwaukee. In the presidential campaign, G.O.P. candidates John McCain and George W. Bush are trumpeting voucher proposals. While Vice President Al Gore launched an ad that calls vouchers a "big mistake," his Democratic opponent Bill Bradley supports them, at least as "experiments."
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear several school-choice cases, legal experts suspect the more clear-cut Cleveland case might prod it into action. In the meantime, Judge Oliver is allowing Derrick Milancuk and nearly 4,000 other students in the Cleveland voucher program to remain in their schools while his ruling is on appeal.
~~~~~~~~
By Jodie Morse Time; 12/31/99, Vol. 154 Issue 27, p220, 2/3p, 1c
注(1)：本文選自By Jodie Morse Time; 12/31/99, Vol. 154 Issue 27, p220, 2/3p, 1c
注(2)：本文習題命題模仿對象2004年真題text 2
does the author intend to illustrate with Derrick’s change of performance in different schools?
[A] the role voucher program plays in helping children get better education
[B] the change a parochial school can bring to a child
[C] the poor education quality of public schools
[D] the importance of enrolling kids of poor performance in private schools
can we infer from the second paragraph?
[A] Parents do not have a choice when they send their children to religious schools.
[B]. The judge’s ruling is helpful in building better public schools.
[C] Teaching religious stuff in schools is a violation of the Constitution.
[D] Teachers of public schools do not welcome the idea of voucher program.
does “advance religion through government-supported religious indoctrination” (Line 5, Paragraph 2) mean?
[A] promote religious ideas in public schools with government support
[B] collect government resources to support religious activities
[C] help religious schools use public fund to spread religious ideas
[D] allow religion to interfere with government work
4th paragraph suggests that _________________.
[A] Judge Oliver’s ruling has caused political debate between the Republicans and the Democrats.
[B] George W. Bush is in favor of voucher program.
[C] Voucher program does more good than harm.
[D] Democrats have a low opinion of voucher program.
h of the following is true according to the text?
[A] The author thinks that voucher program is more of a curse than a blessing.
[B] The U.S Supreme Court will not support voucher program.
[C] Parents will have no choice but send their children to religious schools if they join in the voucher program.
[D] Voucher program is still a controversial issue in legal and political areas.
答案：ADCBD
篇章剖析
本篇文章以具體事例爲引子，採用對比分析的方法，就教育券計劃在美國所產生的廣泛影響進行分析。在第一段以一個具體事例說明教育券計劃給米蘭卡克的兒子德里克帶來的變化，接着在第二段說明教育券計劃引發的爭論和司法訴訟，在第三段提出支持者的意見，第四段和第五段說明教育券計劃正逐漸贏得司法的支持。
詞彙註釋
voucher [5vaJtFE(r)]n. 代金券;教育券
flunk [flQNk]v. (使)失敗
parochial [pE5rEJkIEl] adj. 教區的
stall [stC:l]v. (使)停轉, (使)停止, 遲延
forklift [5fC:klIft] n. <美>[機]剷車,叉式升降機
Mass [mAs, mB:s] n. (天主教的)彌撒
crisp [krIsp] adj. 嶄新的;明顯乾淨的或新的：
sectarian [sek5teErIEn] adj. 宗派的;教派的
secular [5sekjJlE(r)]adj. 非宗教的，世俗的
indoctrination [In5dRktrIneIF(E)n] n. 教導, 教化
Amendment [E5mendmEnt]n. 修正案
charter school: 特許學校 ([美國]不受地方教育主管機構管理，具有不同於其他學校的課程設置和教育理念的公立學校)
magnet school: 英才學校 (提供專業課程，具有較高學術水準的公立學校)
prod [ prCd ] v. 督促;推動
appeal [E5pi:l]n. 上訴
難句突破
ng Jefferson and Madison, Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. wrote that because four-fifths of the private schools participating in the voucher program are religious, the program robs parents of "genuine choice" between sectarian and secular schools, thus "advancing religion through government-supported religious indoctrination."
主體句式：Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. wrote that…
結構分析：這個句子是個複雜句，citing是現在分詞做方式狀語，在wrote後面由that引導的賓語從句又是一個複雜結構，包含了because引導的原因狀語從句，還有advancing這個現在分詞引導的結果狀語。理解這樣的複雜長句時，應該先確定句子的主語和謂語，再確定其他句子成分。
句子譯文：所羅門·奧利弗法官引用傑斐遜和麥迪遜的話寫道，因爲參與教育券計劃的學校中有五分之四是宗教學校，這一計劃實際上剝奪了家長在世俗學校和宗教學校之間做出“真正選擇”的機會，繼而“通過政府支持的宗教教育擴大宗教影響”。
題目分析
1.答案是A，屬推理判斷題。 文中先說Derrick在公立學校的糟糕表現，再說在教區學校所取得的進步，作者用“Yet Milancuk found a way out, thanks to Cleveland's pioneering school-voucher program”來說明Derrick的前後變化歸功於教育券計劃的實施，併爲下文討論教育券計劃做好了鋪墊。
2. 答案是D，屬推理判斷題。從第二段最後一行“voucher opponents--mainly teachers' unions and liberal interest groups--see it as a major victory”可以看出教師們對教育券計劃持反對態度。
3. 答案是C，屬猜詞題。文中第二段法官裁定克利夫蘭教育券計劃違背了憲法政教分離的原則，也就是說政府資金不應該用於資助教授宗教內容的宗教學校。由此可見如果允許在宗教學校中使用教育券，就會導致公共資金被用於宗教傳播活動。
4. 答案是B，屬事實細節題。文中第四段第四行提到“George W. Bush are trumpeting voucher proposals.”trumpet意爲“鼓吹，宣傳”。
5. 答案是D， 屬推理判斷題。從全文列舉的材料來看，有裁定教育券計劃違憲的例子(第二段)，也有說明許多州立法機關和法院支持教育券計劃的例子(第四段);有支持着的意見，也有反對者的意見，但並沒有最終的定論。由此可見，教育券計劃仍然備受爭議。
參考譯文：
爲教育券打低分
法官裁定克利夫蘭將教育券用於教區學校的做法違法。但這一裁定會妨礙教育券運動嗎?
沃特·米蘭卡克在公立學校的不快經歷早在兒子德里克上幼兒園的時候就開始了。當時德里克所在的幼兒園人滿爲患，學生們上課經常打架，罵老師。米蘭卡克想讓德里克轉學，但他做叉車司機的收入支付不了私立學校的學費。好在米蘭卡克終於找到了一個辦法，這還要歸功於克利夫蘭首創的學校教育券計劃。這一計劃撥給他將近1500美元的州基金幫他讓德里克在附近的聖·斯坦尼斯洛斯天主教學校註冊上學。現在德里克穿着嶄新的校服。他的閱讀能力已經有所提高。每週做彌撒和學習聖經也使德里克受到薰陶，現在他不用人催就會每天做禱告。他爸爸說：“這所學校真的在培養他的信念。”
可是，這與其說是件好事，不如說是件壞事。上週一位聯邦法官裁定該計劃違背了憲法政教分離的原則，這給克利夫蘭的教育券計劃帶來了沉重打擊。所羅門·奧利弗法官引用傑斐遜和麥迪遜的話寫道，因爲參與教育券計劃的學校中有五分之四是宗教學校，這一計劃實際上剝奪了家長在世俗學校和宗教學校之間做出“真正選擇”的機會，繼而“通過政府支持的宗教教育擴大宗教影響”。這一裁決是最近幾個月來第四起禁止在教區學校使用教育券的裁決，而反對教育券的人---主要是教師工會和自由主義利益團體---則把它視爲一場重大勝利。
支持教育券的人---由內城區的家長和保守團體形成的一支不同尋常的聯合陣線---反駁認爲這位法官既不理解克利夫蘭計劃，也沒有領會“憲法第一修正案”的真正含義。他們指出，那些不喜歡交換學校的克利夫蘭家長可以把他們的孩子送到城裏的正規公立學校，或者特許公立學校和英才學校(magnet school)。司法學院的律師克林特·伯裏克曾爲教育券計劃辯護，他說：“沒有人能迫使一個孩子參與一個項目，或者進入一所宗教學校。”
雖然最近遭遇了挫折，但教育券運動正在各州立法機構和一些州法院贏得支持。今年秋季，佛羅里達開始了第一項全州教育券計劃。威斯康星最高法院也贊同密爾沃基教區學校使用教育券。在總統選舉中，共和黨候選人約翰·麥凱恩和喬治·W·布什都積極支持教育券計劃。雖然副總統艾爾·戈爾在一則廣告中宣稱教育券是“一個嚴重錯誤”，其民主黨內的對手比爾·布萊德裏卻對它們持支持態度，至少把它們當作“實驗”。
儘管美國最高法院拒絕審理幾起選校案件，法律專家懷疑案情清楚的克利夫蘭教育券案也許會促使高院行動起來。與此同時，奧利弗法官同意在他的裁決被上訴期間讓德里克·米蘭卡克和近4000名參與克利夫蘭教育券計劃的其他學生繼續留在他們所在的學校裏。
