英語四級難度提升閱讀訓(xùn)練 Text 27

Text 27

The image was riveting, as justice John Paul Stevens, a Chicago native, presented it. A gang member and his father are hanging out near Wrigley Field. Are they there "to rob an unsuspecting fan or just to get a glimpse of Sammy Sosa leaving the ball park?" A police officer has no idea, but under Chicago's anti-gang law, the cop must order them to disperse. With Stevens writing for a 6-to-3 majority, the Supreme Court last week struck down Chicago's sweeping statute, which had sparked 42,000 arrests in its three years of enforcement.

The decision was a blow to advocates of get-tough crime policies. But in a widely noted concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that a less draconian approach — distinguishing gang members from innocent bystanders — might pass constitutional muster. New language could target loiterers "with no apparent purpose other than to establish control over identifiable areas, to intimidate others from entering those areas or to conceal illegal activities," she wrote. Chicago officials vowed to draft a new measure. "We will go back and correct it and then move forward," said Mayor Richard Daley.

Chicago officials, along with the League of Cities and 31 states that sided with them in court, might do well to look at one state where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges: California. The state has two antiloitering statutes on the books, aimed at people intending to commit specific crimes — prostitution and drug dealing. In addition, a number of local prosecutors are waging war against gangs by an innovative use of the public-nuisance laws.

In cities such as Los Angeles and San Jose, prosecutors have sought injunctions against groups of people suspected of gang activity. "The officers in the streets know the gang members and gather physical evidence for lengthy court hearings," says Los Angeles prosecutor Martin Vranicar. If the evidence is enough to convince a judge, an injunction is issued to prohibit specific behavior — such as carrying cell phones or pagers or blocking sidewalk passage — in defined geographical areas. "It works instantly," says San Jose city attorney Joan Gallo, who successfully defended the tactic before the California Supreme Court. "A few days after the injunctions, children are playing on streets where they never were before."

So far, only a few hundred gang members have been targeted, out of an estimated 150,000 in Los Angeles alone. But experts say last week's decision set the parameters for sharper measures. Says Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe: "It just means they have to use a scalpel rather than an invisible mallet."

1.What does the author intend to illustrate with the example of the gang member and his father?

A.How the antiloitering law works?　　B.How to maintain charming image?

C.How tough the crime polices were?　D.Why Chicago's sweeping statute stroke down?

2.What can we infer from the first two paragraphs?

A.Chicago's antiloitering law shouldn't be struck down.

B.The cop was entitled to send the gangs away.

C.Chicago officials yielded to the result of striking down the law.

D.Antiloitering Law in Chicago was much too severe for the majority.

3.The third and fourth paragraphs suggest that_______.

A.the League of Cities and 31 states should work with Chicago officials

B.the injunctions in some cities brought back the safety on the street

C.California successfully starts the battle against the gangs

D.the police officers shoulder more responsibility than before

4.What does the author mean by "It just means they have to use a scalpel rather than an invisible mallet" (Last line, Para. 5)?

A.The gang members should be given a get-tough attitude in the long run.

B.The targeted gang members rather than all of them should be given a get-tough treatment.

C.A scalpel can cut off the tumors of the society while the invisible mallet fails to.

D.A scalpel is more powerful than the invisible mallet.

5.Which of the following is true according to the passage?

A.Chicago's sweeping statute was struck down for its involving too many arrests.

B.Chicago officials still maintained their get-tough crime policies.

C.It was not safe for children to play on the street.

D.California used a scalpel while other states used an invisible mallet to cope with the gangs.

長難例句分析

［長難例句］Chicago officials, along with the League of Cities and 31 states that sided with them in court, might do well to look at one state where anti-gang loitering prosecutions have withstood constitutional challenges: California.

［結(jié)構(gòu)分析］along with the League of Cities and 31 states在句子中作伴隨狀語，其中that引導(dǎo)的定語從句修飾the League of Cities and 31 states；主句中where引導(dǎo)的從句修飾state。

［參考譯文］只要芝加哥官員以及那些在法庭上支持他們的城市聯(lián)盟和31個州，去看看那個州——加州——的情況就可以處理好他們的問題。加州的反犯罪集團(tuán)閑蕩起訴案已經(jīng)受住了憲法的挑戰(zhàn)。

全文參考譯文

正如芝加哥法官John Paul Stevens所描述的那樣，這種景象是非常吸引人的。一個犯罪團(tuán)伙成員和他的父親在里格利球場附近閑蕩，他們在那兒“是想搶劫一個毫無戒心的球迷呢，還是只為了目睹一下正在離場的塞米索薩棒球隊的風(fēng)采呢？”警官不得而知，但是根據(jù)芝加哥反犯罪團(tuán)伙法，警察必須命令他們散開。鑒于Stevens法官的書面要求以6比3的多數(shù)通過，上個星期最高法院廢除了芝加哥的肅清法令。這項法令在三年的實施時間里，引發(fā)了4.2萬起逮捕案。

這一決定對于那些主張嚴(yán)厲懲治犯罪的人來說，無疑是當(dāng)頭一棒。但是根據(jù)一種相當(dāng)著名且普遍贊同的觀點，法官Sandra Day O'Connor認(rèn)為，采取一種不太嚴(yán)厲的做法——把犯罪團(tuán)伙成員與無辜的旁觀者加以區(qū)分的方法——可能更符合憲法的規(guī)定。她這樣寫道，議案中使用的新的措辭可能會把那些“除了控制可識別區(qū)域、恐嚇?biāo)瞬坏眠M(jìn)入該區(qū)域或隱瞞非法活動外沒有其他明確目的”的閑蕩者作為目標(biāo)。芝加哥官員發(fā)誓要起草一項新措施。Richard Daley市長說：“我們要回過頭去對其進(jìn)行糾正，然后再繼續(xù)往前走?！?/p>

只要芝加哥官員以及那些在法庭上支持他們的城市聯(lián)盟和31個州，去看看那個州——加州——的情況就可以處理好他們的問題。加州的反犯罪團(tuán)伙閑蕩起訴案已經(jīng)受住了憲法的挑戰(zhàn)。這個州已將兩部禁止閑蕩的法律編輯成冊，該法律主要針對那些意欲賣淫和販毒等特種罪行的人。另外，當(dāng)?shù)匾恍z察官正創(chuàng)新性地應(yīng)用公共妨害法向犯罪團(tuán)伙宣戰(zhàn)。

在洛杉磯和圣何塞這樣的城市，檢察官已要求對那些被懷疑有團(tuán)伙犯罪行為的犯罪團(tuán)伙成員實行禁令。洛杉磯檢察官Martin Vranicar說：“大街上巡邏的警察熟悉犯罪團(tuán)伙的成員，并為漫長的法庭審訊收集物證?！比绻C據(jù)能足以使法官信服，就會頒布禁令，在特定區(qū)域里禁止某些特定的行為——比如攜帶手機或?qū)ず魴C或阻礙行人通道。曾在加利福尼亞最高法庭上成功為泰迪公司（The Tactic）進(jìn)行辯護(hù)的圣何塞市律師Joan Gallo說：“這馬上就奏效了。禁止令頒布幾天之后，孩子們就開始在他們以前未去過的大街上玩耍了?！?/p>

據(jù)估計，洛杉磯15萬個犯罪團(tuán)伙成員中，至今只有幾百人被定為目標(biāo)對象。但是專家們表示，上周的決定為實施更為嚴(yán)厲的措施確立了范圍。哈佛大學(xué)法律教授Laurence Tribe說：“這只是意味，他們必須用手術(shù)刀而不是用無形的槌棒來解決這一問題了。”

題目答案與解析

1.作者引用一個犯罪團(tuán)伙成員和他的父親的例子，想說明什么？

A.禁止閑蕩法令是如何運作的？　B.怎樣保持迷人的形象？

C.犯罪政策非常強硬？　　　　　D.為什么芝加哥的肅清法被廢除？

【答案】A

【解析】屬推理判斷題。文中對應(yīng)信息but under Chicago's anti-gang law, the cop must order them to disperse，從第一段我們可以看出作者在介紹芝加哥的“禁止閑蕩法令”是如何運作及被解除的。

2.從前兩段，我們可以推導(dǎo)出什么？

A.芝加哥的禁止閑蕩法令不應(yīng)被廢除。

B.警察有權(quán)力驅(qū)散黑幫。

C.芝加哥官員接受了廢除法律的結(jié)果。

D.對于大多數(shù)人來說，芝加哥的禁止閑蕩法太嚴(yán)厲了。

【答案】D

【解析】屬推理判斷題。第一段和第二段主要介紹芝加哥解除了“禁止閑蕩法令”。從第一段which had sparked 42,000 arrests in its three years of enforcement，我們可以看出這一法令是非常嚴(yán)厲的；從第二段But in a widely noted concurring opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested that a less draconian approach — distinguishing gang members from innocent bystanders — might pass constitutional muster我們可以看出，一項較寬松的法令即將出臺。從這些地方我們可作出判斷。

3.從第三段和第四段可以推斷出________。

A.城市聯(lián)盟和31個州應(yīng)該和芝加哥官員一起合作

B.禁令使一些城市的街道重新變得安全起來

C.加利福尼亞成功地開啟了打擊街頭團(tuán)伙的戰(zhàn)斗

D.警察應(yīng)該比以前更負(fù)責(zé)任

【答案】C

【解析】屬推理判斷題。第三段和第四段主要介紹了加利福尼亞州是如何與街頭團(tuán)伙行為作斗爭的。

4.作者說“這只是意味，他們必須用手術(shù)刀而不是用無形的槌棒來解決這一問題了”（第五段最后一行），這句話是什么意思？

A.從長期來看，應(yīng)該對犯罪團(tuán)伙采取越來越強硬的態(tài)度。

B.對待目標(biāo)犯罪團(tuán)伙的態(tài)度應(yīng)該比其他犯罪團(tuán)伙的要強硬。

C.手術(shù)刀可以切除社會的腫瘤，但是無形的槌棒卻做不到。

D.手術(shù)刀比無形的槌棒更有力。

【答案】B

【解析】屬推理判斷題。這篇文章中存在對比：芝加哥的肅清法令sparked 42,000 arrests in its three years of enforcement，重在大范圍的打擊；加利福尼亞州only a few hundred gang members have been targeted, out of an estimated 150,000 in Los Angeles alone，重在小范圍的清除。

5.從本文內(nèi)容看，下面哪個選項是正確的？

A.芝加哥的肅清法被廢除是因為根據(jù)該法令逮捕的人太多了。

B.芝加哥官員仍然堅持強硬打擊犯罪的政策。

C.孩子在街上玩耍不安全。

D.加利福尼亞使用手術(shù)刀，而其他州卻使用無形的槌棒來打擊罪犯團(tuán)伙。

【答案】D

【解析】屬推理判斷題。分析同第四題。