|
发表于 2016-7-14 16:27:25
|
显示全部楼层
25. What would be the best title for the text?
[A] Newspapers of the Good Old Days
[B] The Lost Horizon in Newspapers
[C] Mournful Decline of Journalism
[D] Prominent Critics in Memory
【点点答案】[D] Prominent Critics in Memory
【解析】此题争议很大!题干问:本文最好的标题是什么。我们逐项来看[A] Newspapers of the Good Old Days(过去美好日子的报纸),大家注意,作者怀念过去美好日子是没错的,过去美好的日子主要指文艺评论的范围与严肃性,作者怀念过去,错误之处在于中心词,要是改为:the Good Old Days of Newspapers(报纸的过去美好日子)就可以考虑了。再看[B] The Lost Horizon in Newspapers(报纸中失去的视野),可能会有人考虑horizon不就是scope与perspective的替换吗?但是,我们看第一句话(也是本文的主题句)Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage. 后半句说或许最具有深远意义的变化就是这些报纸文艺报道的范围在缩小、严肃性在减弱,势头不可阻挡。注意:inexorable decline ,是说“势不可挡的衰退”,而B项中的定语是lost(失去、消失),大家想程度再怎么大的衰退也不会消失吧?毕竟还没有到了lost的程度;另外文章主题说的是文艺评论的衰退,而不是报纸的衰退。[C] Mournful Decline of Journalism(新闻业令人惋惜的衰退)分析同B项,注意这里边的Journalism(新闻业)涵盖的范围太大,Journalism> Newspaper> arts criticism.因此C项犯了扩大范围的错误。最后一项[D] Prominent Critics in Memory(记忆中杰出的评论家),D项是以小见大,注意,以评论家的命运说明文艺评论的命运。
26. Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of
[A] their limited value to business
[B] their connection with asset allocation
[C] the possible restriction on their granting
[D] the controversy over authorization
【其他答案】[D] the controversy over authorization
【点点答案】[C] the possible restriction on their granting
【解析】问商业方法专利最近由于什么引起了人们的关注。根据题干的recently我们定位到原文第二段。Now the nation's top patent court appears poised to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. 答案就在这句话中。我们来看,这句话的意思是:现在美国顶尖的专利法院似乎谨慎地缩小商业方法专利,而这种专利自从10年前被政府授权后就一直存在争议。
至于某机构选择的[D] the controversy over authorization (对授权的争议),从这句话的定语从句部分我们可以知道,这种争议已经长达10年之久,而不是现在才引起人们的关注,因此是不能入选的。我们选[C]the possible restriction on their granting(对他们授权可能的限制),其中appear表示“看起来、似乎”= seem 替换选项中的possible(可能的);scale back(缩减)替换 restriction.
27. Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?
[A] Its ruling complies with the court decisions
[B] It involves a very big business transaction
[C] It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit
[D] It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
【其它答案】[B] It involves a very big business transaction
【点点答案】[D] It may change the legal practices in the U.S.
【解析】此题问关于Bilski案例下面哪一项是正确的。
思路一:根据题干中出现的Bilski case我们定位到文章第二段倒数第二句话(In re Bilski, as the case is known, is "a very big deal," says Dennis D. Crouch, a patent professor at the University of Missouri School of Law.)这句话是密苏里大学法学院的一位专利学教授Dennis D. Crouch所说,“正如人们所知道的那样,这一案例是一件非常大的事情”,注意,此处的deal表示的是“事情”,而不是“(商业)交易”,原文只是讲联邦巡回法院用这个特殊的案例(Bilski case)对这种business-method patents进行广泛复审,即:将这件事情搞的很大。 此题还有关键的一处在后边:“It has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents”,即“可能整个消除这种专利类别”,大家注意,has the potential 语气为may(它们之间是相互替换的);entire 表示强调,译为“整个的、全部的”,潜台词就是美国的法律实践可能会有重大变化,说明这个案例可能会改变美国的法律实践!因此选[D]项。
思路二:文章第四段也提到了对Bilski case这一案例的结论性总结,从这里也能判断出选[D]。关键之处在于The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three,… 即,联邦巡回法院发布了一项不同寻常的法令,stating为现在分词作后置定语修饰order,对法令的内容做出了解释,后边是that引导的宾语从句,这项不同寻常的法令表明了“原来由典型的3名法官为一组进行听证,而现在却改为了12名法官听证”,听证会的法官人数变化很大,从这可以看出Bilski case是一件大事,因为要不是一件大事的话,法官人数为什么要有很么巨大的变动呢?注意这句话中的unusual与typical是对比词,“一项不同寻常的法令”说明肯定和一般情况下(typical)的法令不再相同;rather than“而不是”,在句中也表示发生变化。因此选[D]项。
至于某些机构选择的[B] It involves a very big business transaction,通过上面的分析,我们没有看出Bilski case涉及了一项非常大的商业交易,误选B是对第二段中出现的"a very big deal理解错了,以为是用transaction替换了deal,实际上不是这样,请见上述分析。
|
|