考研英語(yǔ)法律類(lèi)閱讀理解
法律類(lèi)型的閱讀理解不僅可以幫助我們?cè)诳佳杏⒄Z(yǔ)的復(fù)習(xí)更加完善，還可以多學(xué)習(xí)法學(xué)類(lèi)的知識(shí)。下面是學(xué)習(xí)啦小編給大家整理的考研英語(yǔ)法律類(lèi)閱讀理解，供大家參閱!
考研英語(yǔ)法律類(lèi)閱讀理解：LOCK 'EM UP
Minority youths are more likely to face trial as adults
A WHITE KID SELLS A BAG OF COCAINE at his suburban high school. A Latino kid does the same in his inner-city neighborhood. Both get caught. Both are first
-time offenders. The white kid walks into juvenile court with his parents, his priest, a good lawyer-and medical coverage. The Latino kid walks into court with his mom, no legal resources and no insurance. The judge lets the white kid go with his family; he's placed in a private treatment program. The minority kid has no such option. He's detained.
There, in a nutshell, is what happens more and more often in the juvenile-court system. Minority youths arrested on violent felony charges in California are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be transferred out of the juvenile-justice system and tried as adults, according to a study released last week by the Justice Policy Institute, a research center in San Francisco. Once they are in adult courts, young black offenders are 18 times more likely to be jailed-and Hispanics seven times more likely-than are young white offenders. "Discrimination against kids of color accumulates at every stage of the justice system and skyrockets when juveniles are, tried as adults," says Dan Macallair, a co-author of the new study. "California has a double standard: throw kids of color behind bars, but .rehabilitate white kids who commit comparable crimes."
Even as juvenile crime has declined from its peak in the early 1990s, headline grabbing violence by minors has intensified a get-tough attitude. Over the past six years, 43 states have passed laws that make it easier to try juveniles as adults. In Texas and Connecticut in 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, all the juveniles in jails were minorities. Vincent Schiraldi, the Justice Policy Institute's director, concedes that "some kids need to be tried as adults. But most can be rehabilitated."
Instead, adult prisons tend to brutalize juveniles. They are eight times more likely to commit suicide and five times more likely to be sexually abused than offenders held in juvenile detention. "Once they get out, they tend to commit more crimes and more violent crimes," says Jenni Gainsborough, a spokeswoman for the Sentencing Project, a reform group in Washington. The system, in essence, is training career criminals. And it's doing its worst work among minorities.
~~~~~~~~
注(1)本文選自By Anamaria Wilson Time; 02/14/2000, Vol. 155 Issue 6, p68, 1/3p
注(2)本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象1997年真題text 5(其中因1997年真題text 5只有4個(gè)題目，所以本文第4題模仿參照對(duì)象為1999年 Text 4的第4題。)
1.From the first paragraph we learn that _________.
[A]the white kid is more lucky than the minority kid
[B]the white kid has got a lot of help than the minority kid
[C]the white kid and minority kid has been treated differently
[D]the minority kid should be set free at once.
2.According to the passage, which of the following is TRUE?
[A]Kids shouldn’t be tried as adults.
[B] Discrimination exists in the justice system.
[C]Minority kids are likely to commit crimes.
[D] States shouldn’t pass the laws.
3.The word “skyrocket” (Line 13, Paragraph 2) means ________.
[A]rising sharply
[B]widening suddenly
[C]spreading widely
[D]expanding quickly
4.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that ________.
[A] something seems to be wrong with the justice system
[B]adult prisons have bad influence on the juveniles
[C] juveniles in adult prison are ill-treated
[D]the career criminals are trained by the system
5.The passage shows that the author is _________ the present situation.
[A] amazed at
[B]puzzled by
[C]disappointed at
[D] critical of
答案：CBAAD
篇章剖析
本文的結(jié)構(gòu)形式為提出問(wèn)題----分析問(wèn)題。在第一段首先提出問(wèn)題,以一個(gè)案例為切入點(diǎn)，對(duì)比白人少年與有色人種少年受到的不同待遇。第二段和第三段用事實(shí)進(jìn)一步說(shuō)明司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)有色人種的青少年的歧視以及他們受到的不公正待遇。第四段闡述了司法機(jī)關(guān)的這一做法造成的不良影響。
詞匯注釋
offender [E5fendE(r)] n.罪犯, 冒犯者
coverage [5kQvErIdV]n.保險(xiǎn)項(xiàng)目;保險(xiǎn)范圍
option [5RpF(E)n]n.選擇;供選擇的事物
detain [dI5teIn]v.拘留,
in a nutshell [5nQtFel]簡(jiǎn)括地,簡(jiǎn)言之;簡(jiǎn)要地說(shuō)
felony [5felEnI]n.[律]重罪
rehabilitate [ri:hE5bIlIteIt]v. 使(身體)康復(fù), 使復(fù)職, 使恢復(fù)名譽(yù), 使復(fù)原
get-tough [5^et 5tQf]adj.強(qiáng)硬的
concede[kEn5si:d]v.勉強(qiáng), 承認(rèn)
brutalize[5bru:tElaIz]v.殘酷地對(duì)待
detention[dI5tenF(E)n]n.拘留, 禁閉
難句突破
1.Minority youths arrested on violent felony charges in California are more than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be transferred out of the juvenile-justice system and tried as adults, according to a study released last week by the Justice Policy Institute, a research center in San Francisco.
主體句式：Minority youths are more than …
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：這是一個(gè)比較長(zhǎng)的簡(jiǎn)單句。“more than twice as likely as their white counterparts”是一種表示倍數(shù)的表達(dá)方式;“to be transferred out of the juvenile-justice system and tried as adults”不定式短語(yǔ)來(lái)修飾white counterparts; “according to a study released last week by the Justice Policy Institute”是現(xiàn)在分詞做伴隨狀語(yǔ);“a research center in San Francisco”是“the Justice Policy Institute”的同位語(yǔ)。
句子譯文：據(jù)舊金山一家研究中心—司法政策研究—上周發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究結(jié)果，在加州因暴力重罪嫌疑被捕進(jìn)而移交到少年法庭系統(tǒng)作為成人被審判的少數(shù)民族青少年的數(shù)量可能是白人少年的兩倍。
題目分析
1.答案為C，屬推理判斷題。作者在第一段中進(jìn)行對(duì)比，目的在于引出同一性質(zhì)案例因?yàn)閷?duì)象不同，從而處理結(jié)果也不同這一論點(diǎn)。
2.答案為B，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是：“Discrimination against kids of color accumulates at every stage of the justice system and skyrockets when juveniles are, tried as adults”。其它選項(xiàng)意思與原文不符。
3.答案為A ，屬猜詞題。從單詞所在的句子語(yǔ)境中，我們可以判斷skyrocket與accumulate的意思相近，并且程度更強(qiáng)。了解到這一點(diǎn)就不難作出選擇。
4.答案為A，屬推理判斷題。原文相關(guān)信息是“The system, in essence, is training career criminals. And it's doing its worst work among minorities”。
5.答案為D，屬情感態(tài)度題。作者通篇都在闡述司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)有色人種青少年的不公正待遇。
參考譯文
把他們關(guān)起來(lái)!
一白人少年在他就讀的郊區(qū)中學(xué)販賣(mài)一袋可卡因。一拉丁美洲少年在其居住的市內(nèi)社區(qū)也做同樣的事情。兩人都被抓。兩人都是初犯。白人少年在其父母、牧師、知名律師陪伴下走進(jìn)少年法庭—他有醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn);而那個(gè)拉丁美洲少年卻只在他母親陪伴下來(lái)到法庭，沒(méi)有任何法律援助，也沒(méi)有什么保險(xiǎn)。法官讓白人少年隨家人回家，判他接受私下處理計(jì)劃監(jiān)管。而那位少數(shù)民族少年則別無(wú)選擇。他被拘留了。
簡(jiǎn)而言之，這樣的事情在少年法庭上越來(lái)越常見(jiàn)。據(jù)舊金山一家研究中心—司法政策研究—上周發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究結(jié)果，在加州因暴力重罪嫌疑被捕進(jìn)而移交到少年法庭系統(tǒng)作為成人被審判的少數(shù)民族青少年的數(shù)量可能是白人少年的兩倍。一旦被移交成人法庭，那些青少年黑人犯法者被送進(jìn)監(jiān)獄的可能性是白人的十八倍，美籍西班牙人是白人的八倍。 “司法系統(tǒng)對(duì)有色人種青少年的歧視每升一級(jí)都加一次碼，而這些年輕人一旦以成人的身份被審判的話(huà)，這種歧視便被極度升化，達(dá)到無(wú)以復(fù)加的地步。” 這項(xiàng)研究的合作者丹•麥卡萊爾(Dan Macallair)說(shuō)，“加利福尼亞歷來(lái)奉行雙重標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：把犯罪的有色人種青少年投進(jìn)監(jiān)獄，但對(duì)犯有同等罪行的白人少年卻實(shí)行教育感化。”
正當(dāng)青少年犯罪率從二十世紀(jì)九十年代初期的高峰開(kāi)始下降的時(shí)候，常常成為報(bào)刊頭條新聞的少數(shù)民族未成年人暴力犯罪強(qiáng)化了公眾的強(qiáng)硬態(tài)度。在過(guò)去六年中，四十三個(gè)州通過(guò)的法律使青少年以成人的身份受審變得更加易如反掌。1996年，美國(guó)德克薩斯州和康涅狄格州(這兩個(gè)州是唯一能收集到最近一年青少年犯罪記錄的州)的資料表明，在監(jiān)獄服刑的所有青少年都是有色人種。司法政策研究所所長(zhǎng)文森特•希拉迪(Vincent Schiraldi)承認(rèn)，“有些青少年需要作為成人進(jìn)行審判，但是他們中大多數(shù)人是可以教育感化的。”
成人監(jiān)獄經(jīng)常虐待這些青少年。這些人自殺的可能性是少管所的罪犯的八倍，遭到性虐待的可能性是他們的五倍。華盛頓的一個(gè)改革團(tuán)體—“審判項(xiàng)目組織”的女發(fā)言人Jenni Gainsborough認(rèn)為，“這些人一旦被釋放，他們往往會(huì)瘋狂作案，實(shí)施更多的暴力犯罪。” 這種體系實(shí)質(zhì)上是在培養(yǎng)職業(yè)罪犯;對(duì)有色人種而言，它起的作用更糟。
考研英語(yǔ)法律類(lèi)閱讀理解：TROUSER SUIT
The European Court sides with Levi Strauss in its battle with Tesco
Dateline: New York
IT WAS a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America's Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi's jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive.
Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi's case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi's jeans sold in America and Europe--a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi's jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco's head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks "creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance".
The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.
Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi's might well fade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
注(1)：本文選自Economist; 11/24/2001, Vol. 361 Issue 8249, p58, 1/2p
注(2)：本文習(xí)題命題模仿對(duì)象2001年真題text 5(其中因2001年真題text 5只有4個(gè)題目，所以本文第5題模仿參照對(duì)象為1999年 Text 1的第4題。)
1.Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?
[A]Consumers and free traders were very angry.
[B]Only the Levi’s maker can decide the prices of the jeans.
[C] The ruling has protected Levi’s from price dumping.
[D] Levi’s jeans should be sold at a high price .
2.Gucci’s success shows that _______.
[A]Gucci has successfully saved its own image.
[B] It has changed its fate with its own effort.
[C]Opening its own stores is the key to success.
[D] It should be the court’s duty to save its image.
3.The word “specious”(line 12, paragraph 2) in the context probably means _______.
[A]responsible for oneself
[B] having too many doubts
[C] not as it seems to be
[D]raising misunderstanding
4.According to the passage, the doomed fate of Levi’s is caused by such factors except that ________.
[A]the rivals are competitive
[B]it fails to command premium prices
[C]market forces have their own rules
[D]the court fails to give some help
5.The author’s attitude towards Levi’s prospect seems to be _______.
[A] biased
[B] indifferent
[C] puzzling
[D] objective
答案：BBCDD
篇章剖析
本文的結(jié)構(gòu)形式為提出問(wèn)題----分析問(wèn)題。在第一段首先提出問(wèn)題,指出歐洲法庭對(duì)特易購(gòu)超市做出的裁決。第二段指出當(dāng)事方對(duì)同一事件的不同看法和解釋。第三段指出爭(zhēng)論的核心問(wèn)題在于是否應(yīng)該借助法庭達(dá)到一些商業(yè)目的，并以古奇(Gucci)為例說(shuō)明答案為否定。第四段對(duì)利維(Levi’s)的前景做出了評(píng)價(jià)和分析。
詞匯注釋
seething [`si:TIN] adj.沸騰的, 火熱的
foul [faJl]adj.下流的，粗俗的：
segment [5se^mEnt]v.分割
innovation [InE5veIF(E)n] n.改革, 創(chuàng)新
specious [5spi:FEs] adj. 似是而非的; 似乎正確的，但實(shí)際卻是謬誤的
arbitrage [5B:bItrIdV] v. 套匯, 套利交易
with a vengeance [5vendVEns]猛烈地;極度地
licensing [5laIsEnsIN] n.注冊(cè)登記
discount [5dIskaJnt] n.折扣
resort [rI5zC:t] vi.求助, 訴諸
premium [5pri:mIEm] n.額外費(fèi)用, 獎(jiǎng)金, 獎(jiǎng)賞, 保險(xiǎn)費(fèi), (貨幣兌現(xiàn)的)貼水
難句突破
1.Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands--which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice.
主體句式：Levi Strauss persuaded that …
結(jié)構(gòu)分析：that之后是一個(gè)賓語(yǔ)從句;by之后的句子做伴隨狀語(yǔ)來(lái)修飾賓語(yǔ)從句;賓語(yǔ)從句中which又引導(dǎo)了一個(gè)非限制性定語(yǔ)從句。
句子譯文：利維•斯圖爾斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利維牛仔服與肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一起廉價(jià)銷(xiāo)售這一做法正在損害其形象，因而也影響到其品牌價(jià)位，這勢(shì)必會(huì)使產(chǎn)品缺乏新意，最終導(dǎo)致消費(fèi)者可選范圍大大縮小。
題目分析
1.答案為B，屬事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是“…should not be allowed … to sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker.”意思是“只有事先經(jīng)過(guò)牛仔褲生產(chǎn)商的同意才能打折銷(xiāo)售。”是否只有生產(chǎn)商才能決定價(jià)格，我們不得而知。
2.答案為B，屬推理判斷題。文中提到問(wèn)題的實(shí)質(zhì)是“whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this.”后又以古奇(Gucci) “saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.”為例，說(shuō)明它的成功并不是訴諸法庭，而是通過(guò)自身的努力和嘗試。
3.答案為C ，屬猜詞題。第二段開(kāi)頭提出了利維公司(Levi’s)對(duì)特易購(gòu)(Tesco)的指責(zé)，后又提出了特易購(gòu)的反駁意見(jiàn)，前后兩者之間的觀點(diǎn)應(yīng)該是相反的。從而可猜出該詞的含義。
4.答案為D，屬推理判斷題。原文對(duì)應(yīng)信息是最后一段。
5.答案為D，屬情感態(tài)度題。作者沒(méi)有任何偏頗的闡述整個(gè)事件。
參考譯文
衣褲套裝
在利維•斯圖爾斯公司同泰斯科連鎖超市的沖突中，歐洲法庭站在利維一邊
法庭的裁決使消費(fèi)者感到義憤填膺，也使很多人認(rèn)為這對(duì)自由貿(mào)易者來(lái)說(shuō)顯然是一樁違規(guī)裁決。11月20日，歐洲法庭對(duì)泰斯科(Tesco)這家英國(guó)連鎖超市做出了如下判決：泰斯科不能從歐盟之外的國(guó)家進(jìn)口利維•斯圖爾斯公司生產(chǎn)的牛仔褲;未經(jīng)牛仔制造商的許可，不得減價(jià)銷(xiāo)售。具有諷刺意味的是，這項(xiàng)裁決是根據(jù)一道歐盟商標(biāo)指令做出的。該指令的目的在于保護(hù)本地、而非美國(guó)制造商免受價(jià)格傾銷(xiāo)造成的損害。其內(nèi)涵是，任何一家擁有自己品牌的公司都可給自己的產(chǎn)品定位，并以適當(dāng)?shù)姆绞椒指钍袌?chǎng)，比如利維牛仔褲，它必須像古姿(Gucci)牌手提包一樣高價(jià)銷(xiāo)售。
利維•斯圖爾斯公司使法庭相信，泰斯科把利維牛仔服與肥皂粉、香蕉等放在一起廉價(jià)銷(xiāo)售這一做法正在損害其形象，因而也影響到其品牌價(jià)位，這勢(shì)必會(huì)使產(chǎn)品缺乏新意，最終導(dǎo)致消費(fèi)者可選范圍大大縮小。消費(fèi)者團(tuán)體和泰斯科卻認(rèn)為，利維公司一案(的判決)貌似有理，實(shí)則不然。泰斯科爭(zhēng)辯說(shuō)，它只是從美國(guó)和歐洲銷(xiāo)售利維牛仔服裝的差價(jià)中套利。這是一種在金融市場(chǎng)天天進(jìn)行上百萬(wàn)次、并使消費(fèi)者真正受益的商業(yè)行為。泰斯科一直以低于利維•斯圖爾斯公司授權(quán)專(zhuān)賣(mài)店一半的價(jià)格每周銷(xiāo)售15,000條牛仔褲。泰斯科公司全球非食品類(lèi)商品采購(gòu)主管克里斯廷·克羅斯認(rèn)為，這一裁決會(huì)冒“設(shè)置歐洲堡壘”的巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
這場(chǎng)激烈的爭(zhēng)論還將繼續(xù)進(jìn)行下去，所涉及的范圍將遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出休閑服裝業(yè)(季諾·大衛(wèi)多夫香水制造商也和利維·斯圖爾斯聯(lián)手起訴)。核心問(wèn)題不在于品牌是否需要通過(guò)控制銷(xiāo)售方式來(lái)維護(hù)其形象，而在于法院是否有責(zé)任來(lái)幫助其達(dá)到這一目的。意大利品牌服飾公司古姿公司—由于許可經(jīng)營(yíng)管理松懈和其商品在折扣店里過(guò)度曝光，其形象正在受到損害—并沒(méi)有依靠法庭，而是通過(guò)中止與第三方供應(yīng)商的合同、更好的控制商品銷(xiāo)售，以及開(kāi)專(zhuān)賣(mài)店等方式挽救了自己的命運(yùn)?，F(xiàn)在已經(jīng)很難找到打折銷(xiāo)售古姿產(chǎn)品的地方了。
品牌專(zhuān)家認(rèn)為，利維•斯圖爾斯公司正在逐步喪失其市場(chǎng)占有率，而讓位于像迪賽(Diesel)這樣市場(chǎng)信息頗為靈通的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手。利維•斯圖爾斯公司已無(wú)力控制品牌溢價(jià)。在市場(chǎng)機(jī)制的作用下，像利維這樣的一般品牌很有可能逐漸消失，進(jìn)而被新的品牌所取代。由于其價(jià)格受到法庭保護(hù)，利維•斯圖爾斯公司可能會(huì)再維持一段時(shí)間，但是沒(méi)有任何一個(gè)法庭會(huì)使它起死回生，再度成為知名品牌。
看過(guò)考研英語(yǔ)法律類(lèi)閱讀理解的人還看了：
考研英語(yǔ)法律類(lèi)閱讀理解
