1、Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood,and most people do not expect to neecl a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless,access to justice is a fundamental democratic right,and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts:where increasing numbers of clefendants are appearing without legal advice or representation,as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of juclges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reducecl sentence.The government knows there is a problem.not least because the王950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016,compared with 2010,was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already clelayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintif{s and defendants with legal representation fell from 60%in 2012 t0 33%in the first quarter of last year,and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children,and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police-which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable,and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the"simpler"and"more responsive"system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary,David Gauke,must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US,a defendant's entittement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning,people are still entitled to access to justice-including lawyers paid for with legal aid. Legal aid cuts fail to raise much public concerns partly because

　　A unlike doctors,lawyers have a bad reputation.

　　B most people lack enough legal knowledge.

　　C lawyers'protests are less reported by the media.

　　D the chaotic legal system is totally disappointing.

　　正確答案：B  

　　答案解析：第一段①句首先說(shuō)明現(xiàn)象：律師對(duì)“法律援助預(yù)算削減”的抗議獲得的公眾支持不多。②句說(shuō)明兩方面原因：法律事務(wù)大多數(shù)人不懂、公設(shè)辯護(hù)人(即法律援助的重要一環(huán))大多數(shù)人很少需要。B.符合其中之一“大多數(shù)人對(duì)法律缺乏足夠了解”。[解題技巧]A.利用人們對(duì)律師職業(yè)的偏見(jiàn)干擾，文中將律師與醫(yī)生護(hù)士相比較意不在說(shuō)明誰(shuí)更受尊重，而是對(duì)比公眾的需求度，以解釋為何人們關(guān)注醫(yī)療政策卻不關(guān)注法律政策。C.由段末unfolding(展開(kāi)、披露)主觀臆斷”媒體之前報(bào)道不足.故人們鮮少關(guān)注”。D.將③句the chaos and failure.…across the legal system所體現(xiàn)的作者呼吁“法律體系的混亂應(yīng)引發(fā)擔(dān)憂/關(guān)注”歪曲為“公眾對(duì)混亂的法律體系已不抱希望”。

　　2、The information commissioner gave Facebook a rap over the knuckles earlier this month,putting the company on notice of likely fines-the equivalent of a few minutes'revenue-for breaches of privacy.On Wednesday the European commission gave Google a vigorous correction,fining it￠4.3 billion for abusing its market dominance with the AndrOJd operating system which powers the overwhelming majority of the world's mobile phones.Google is appealing.The billions of euros at stake aside,it is easy to see why.Google gives most of Android away,not only to the consumers who use it,but to the companies that build their phones around it.As the company points out,there are more than 24,000 competing Android phones available today,from 1,300 companies.How can that possibly constitute a harmful monopoly?Besides,Google has real competition in the smartphone world from Apple.At the same time,these are exactly the factors that make the commission's decision so interesLing and significant.For Google's business to work,it must become as easy as possible for advertisers to reach users.That is the purpose of all the software that Google gives away,from the Android operating system,through to YouTube,Google search on phones and the Chrome browser.This might look like a cross-subsidy,but on the other hand it is the heart of the company's business.The software that Google gives away is not designed to make a profit on its own.This free version does not include the bits that make a phone useful for anything but making telephone calls,and this was the weak spot in Google's defence.None of the enticements-the mail,the search,the maps and the browser-are included.These can only be used with a proprietary chunk of software that Google controls;and manufacturers who want to use the Play store and 11 crucial Google apps must agree not to build so much as a single phone that does not include them.It is all or nothing.This licensing trick is the way in which Google has undoubtedly limited competition.The commission's decision to punish it probably comes too late to undo the damage it has done.All digital businesses tend towards a monopoly,and this is in part because in some important ways they benefit consumers more the larger they grow.Yet as customers we pay for this in other ways and as citizens even more so,not least because the companies fattened by monopoly profits grow too large to fail and too powerful to challenge.There is a public interest in preventing any company from acquiring almost unlimited power.Regulation defends democracy. The phrase"a rap over the knuckles"(I.ine l.Para.1)is closest in meaning to

　　A a not-very-severe punishment.

　　B a nol-very-correci explanaiion.

　　C a heavy fine.

　　D a false charge.

　　正確答案：A  

　　答案解析：第一段①②句結(jié)構(gòu)均為“主干十伴隨狀語(yǔ)”，主干中的關(guān)鍵信息可依靠起補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明作用的狀語(yǔ)推出。①句狀語(yǔ)指出;信息專員警告臉書(shū)因侵犯隱私可能面臨罰款(likely fines)(暗含“罰單實(shí)際并未開(kāi)出”之意);②句通過(guò)具體罰款數(shù)額介紹谷歌被嚴(yán)懲(a vigorous correction)的事實(shí)。結(jié)合兩句可推知臉書(shū)受到處罰比谷歌輕，且實(shí)際并未被開(kāi)出罰單.A.a not-very-severe punishment最為接近所考詞a rap over the knuckles的含義。[解題技巧]B.按字面意思理解②句的correction，并錯(cuò)誤推導(dǎo)出①句是“委員作出了不太正確的解釋”.②句是“委員會(huì)提出了修正”。但兩句話涉及的對(duì)象并非同一家公司，照此理解不合邏輯。C.源自②句“罰款43億歐元”，但這是對(duì)谷歌而非臉書(shū)的處罰。D.同樣曲解了correction的含義，臆斷出處罰谷歌”正確”，指控臉書(shū)“錯(cuò)誤”。注：文中correction為熟詞辟義，意為“處罰，懲罰”，根據(jù)上下文可推知此義。

　　3、Lawyers protesting about cuts don't attract the same level of public support as doctors and nurses.What goes on in the courts is not widely understood,and most people do not expect to neecl a publicly funded lawyer in the way that they rely on hospitals.Nevertheless,access to justice is a fundamental democratic right,and the chaos and failure unfolding across the legal system as the result of cuts should concern everyone who cares about justice.Research carried out by civil servants and published in May after it was leaked shows that the disruptive effect of legal aid cuts in England and Wales has spread from the civil courts to the criminal courts:where increasing numbers of clefendants are appearing without legal advice or representation,as a consequence of changes including new means tests.More than half of juclges questioned for the study voiced concerns about defendants not understanding that a guilty plea could lead to a reducecl sentence.The government knows there is a problem.not least because the王950m reduction in the legal aid bill in 2016,compared with 2010,was more than twice as much as it expected.But ministers have already clelayed far too long in the face of clear evidence that cuts in the family courts have been harmful.Official figures show that the proportion of plaintif{s and defendants with legal representation fell from 60%in 2012 t0 33%in the first quarter of last year,and it is not uncommon for one party in a civil case to be represented by a lawyer while the other is not.Some sensible changes have already been suggested in a review commissioned by the Labour party last year.These include a loosening of the criteria for legal aid eligibility to include all cases involving children,and representation for families in inquests where the state is already funding one party such as the police-which represents an essential rebalancing of justice's scales.The report also made the not unreasonable suggestion that law should be taught in schools.Avoiding costly lawsuits by encouraging people to treat court as a last resort sounds reasonable,and some of the consequences of the cuts were no doubt unintended.But the"simpler"and"more responsive"system promised by the Conservative justice secretary Ken Clarke when embarking on these cost-saving measures in 2010 now looks like wishful thinking at best.The current justice secretary,David Gauke,must act to restore confidence in a damaged system.Legal aid began in the UK in the 1940s with the rest of the welfare state.In the US,a defendant's entittement to a lawyer in a criminal case is enshrined in an amendment to the constitution.While the rules in the UK may lack this constitutional underpinning,people are still entitled to access to justice-including lawyers paid for with legal aid. In the last paragraph,the author calls on the UK government to

　　A improve access to justice.

　　B reorganize welfare department.

　　C promote lawyers'status.

　　D amend the constitution.

　　正確答案：A  

　　答案解析：第六段③句指出，英國(guó)憲法中雖沒(méi)有關(guān)于法律援助的條例，但是人們?nèi)匀挥袡?quán)獲得公正待遇。由此可知，作者認(rèn)為英國(guó)政府應(yīng)當(dāng)改善目前的法律援助狀況，使人們得到公正待遇’A.正確。[解題技巧]B.利用首句welfare staie設(shè)障，但原文僅說(shuō)明英國(guó)福利制度的實(shí)施時(shí)間，無(wú)關(guān)“福利部門重組”。C.將文意重點(diǎn)“(涉及律師的)法律援助”篡改為“律師自身地位”。D.將作者說(shuō)明“美國(guó)憲法有法律援助相關(guān)條例而英國(guó)沒(méi)有”的目的“強(qiáng)調(diào)英國(guó)民眾也需法律援助/公正待遇同樣重要”錯(cuò)解為“提議修改英國(guó)憲法”。

　　4、Americans of a"certain age"abound at the upper levels of American governance.President Trump is the most obvious example.Just over half of US senators wrll be 65 0r older by the end of this year.On the Supreme Court,five of rtine justices are over 65.These"senior citizens"make crucial decisions for the majority of Americans younger than them.Just eight decades ago,when the Social Security system began,65 was codified as the start of"old age".Now many people of that age may feel in the prime of life.Measured by years alone,Americans are on average getting older.A popular notion is that a war is brewing between generations-young working Americans resenting that they must pay more into SociaJ Security and Medicare to support an expanding group of older Americans.There's truth in that sentiment.I,ast year,there were 25 people over 65 for every 100 people between 18 and 64.And the worker-to-retiree ratio is projected to be even worse by 2030.But that idea is being challenged.To begin with,programs like Social Security and Medicare can be adjusted,as ihey have in the past.while certain trends,such as Americans delaying full retirement,could alter the projections.A pair of new government reports show that funding for Medicare will run out in 2026.The Social Security trust fund will dry up by 2034.Despite these warnings,modest fixes are available,including making small changes in the age of eligibility that recognize lengthening life spans.Even that step may not be needed.By one estimate,increasing the Social Security payroll tax by 2.88 percentage points could eliminate the expected revenue shortfall for another three-quarters of a century.But actuarial tables,however useful for government planning,shouldn't impose artificial limits on what older Americans do.Aging isn't what it used to be.Today,75-year-olds on average will live just as many additional years as the average 65-year-old did in 1952.Categorizing by age can be just as harmful as by gender or race.Labeling people by an age category is a receiit phenomenon.The idea of being"middle aged"wasn't popularized until after World War I.Marketing continues to classify Americans by calendar years,walling off the beneficial effects of older and younger people rubbing shoulders.Companies are beginning to consider age diversity to be as important as racial and gender diversity.Some observers suggest businesses try the"shoe test":Look under desks.If everyone's wearing the same kind of shoes-whether wingtips or slipper-the business would benefit from more diversity.Today,suggests one expert,Americans have an opportunity to make a"fresh map of life itself",throwing off outworn ideas about aging.Policies that encourage older Americans to expand the possibilities of their"senior years"will help change limited perceptions and benefit all of society. Which of the following would be the best title for the text?

　　A Shock of gray:how we can fill the pension gap.

　　B Shifting views of seniors:less burden,more asset.

　　C An aging society:challenges,as well as opportunities.

　　D Young Americans:how to make a fresh map of life?

　　正確答案：B  

　　答案解析：文章首段先提出現(xiàn)象“年長(zhǎng)者在發(fā)揮著重要作用”。第二、三段反駁流行看法，指出“老年人不會(huì)成為年輕人的負(fù)擔(dān)”。第四、五段進(jìn)一步指出“對(duì)人們貼以年齡標(biāo)簽有害，公司應(yīng)注重年齡多樣化、積極雇傭年長(zhǎng)者，并從中受益”。最后一段總結(jié)指出”我們應(yīng)拋棄關(guān)于年齡的舊有看法”�？梢�(jiàn)本文論述重點(diǎn)為“改變對(duì)年長(zhǎng)者的看法”，將其視為“財(cái)富”而非“負(fù)擔(dān)”.B.為恰當(dāng)標(biāo)題。[解題技巧]A.與第三段內(nèi)容相符，但無(wú)力涵蓋全篇。C.偏離文章論述重點(diǎn)：雖然文中提到老齡化社會(huì)帶來(lái)的挑戰(zhàn)和機(jī)遇，但論述重點(diǎn)在于：“否定”老齡化社會(huì)所帶來(lái)的“挑戰(zhàn)”，“強(qiáng)調(diào)”年長(zhǎng)者的“作用”，兩者并非并列關(guān)系。D.利用末段首句make a“fresh map of life itself”設(shè)置干擾，但文章的重點(diǎn)在于“勸告人們重新繪制生命之圖(拋棄對(duì)年齡的舊有看法)”而非“教導(dǎo)年輕人如何繪制生命之圖”。

　　5、Americans of a"certain age"abound at the upper levels of American governance.President Trump is the most obvious example.Just over half of US senators wrll be 65 0r older by the end of this year.On the Supreme Court,five of rtine justices are over 65.These"senior citizens"make crucial decisions for the majority of Americans younger than them.Just eight decades ago,when the Social Security system began,65 was codified as the start of"old age".Now many people of that age may feel in the prime of life.Measured by years alone,Americans are on average getting older.A popular notion is that a war is brewing between generations-young working Americans resenting that they must pay more into SociaJ Security and Medicare to support an expanding group of older Americans.There's truth in that sentiment.I,ast year,there were 25 people over 65 for every 100 people between 18 and 64.And the worker-to-retiree ratio is projected to be even worse by 2030.But that idea is being challenged.To begin with,programs like Social Security and Medicare can be adjusted,as ihey have in the past.while certain trends,such as Americans delaying full retirement,could alter the projections.A pair of new government reports show that funding for Medicare will run out in 2026.The Social Security trust fund will dry up by 2034.Despite these warnings,modest fixes are available,including making small changes in the age of eligibility that recognize lengthening life spans.Even that step may not be needed.By one estimate,increasing the Social Security payroll tax by 2.88 percentage points could eliminate the expected revenue shortfall for another three-quarters of a century.But actuarial tables,however useful for government planning,shouldn't impose artificial limits on what older Americans do.Aging isn't what it used to be.Today,75-year-olds on average will live just as many additional years as the average 65-year-old did in 1952.Categorizing by age can be just as harmful as by gender or race.Labeling people by an age category is a receiit phenomenon.The idea of being"middle aged"wasn't popularized until after World War I.Marketing continues to classify Americans by calendar years,walling off the beneficial effects of older and younger people rubbing shoulders.Companies are beginning to consider age diversity to be as important as racial and gender diversity.Some observers suggest businesses try the"shoe test":Look under desks.If everyone's wearing the same kind of shoes-whether wingtips or slipper-the business would benefit from more diversity.Today,suggests one expert,Americans have an opportunity to make a"fresh map of life itself",throwing off outworn ideas about aging.Policies that encourage older Americans to expand the possibilities of their"senior years"will help change limited perceptions and benefit all of society. Which of the following best represents the author's view?

　　A The worry about an aging society is in fact groundless.

　　B The new government report-s find little support.

　　C Delaying full retirement is a dangerous tendency.

　　D Issues arising from an aging society can be tackled.

　　正確答案：D  

　　答案解析：第三段指出，“人口老齡化將會(huì)給年輕人形成巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)負(fù)擔(dān)”這一看法正受到挑戰(zhàn)：雖然政府報(bào)告警告“醫(yī)保資金和社�；�金數(shù)年之后將會(huì)枯竭”，但可以通過(guò)溫和乎段進(jìn)行解決，甚至無(wú)需推遲退休年齡，只需將社會(huì)保障工資稅增加2.88%就可以填補(bǔ)未來(lái)75年的缺口。可見(jiàn)D.正確。[解題技巧]A.對(duì)第三段首句But that idea is being challenged斷章取義，該內(nèi)容說(shuō)明“對(duì)老齡化社會(huì)的擔(dān)憂可以解決”.且文中指出“擔(dān)憂有據(jù)可依”(政府報(bào)告已警告社�；�金枯竭，勞動(dòng)者VS退休者之比確實(shí)在變?cè)?。B.錯(cuò)誤理解⑤句轉(zhuǎn)折之后信息：該內(nèi)容并非指“政府報(bào)告不實(shí)、缺乏根據(jù)”，而是指“盡管有這些警告，但問(wèn)題可以修復(fù)解決”。C.將Americans delaying full retirement，could alter the projections(“推遲完全退休趨勢(shì)”有助于改變“老齡化將導(dǎo)致社�？萁摺边@一預(yù)測(cè))錯(cuò)誤理解為“推遲完全退休是一種危險(xiǎn)的趨勢(shì)”。

　　☛☛☛進(jìn)入2022年研究生考試練習(xí)題庫(kù)>>>更多考研試題(每日一練、模擬試卷、歷年真題、易錯(cuò)題)等你來(lái)做!