精品日本亚洲一区二区三区,伊人久久狼人色精品无码 ,日鲁夜鲁天天鲁视频,国产精品久久亚洲,秋霞理论理论福利院久久,国产日韩欧美视频一区二区三区,色九九,国产精品美女久久久久久免费 ,九九干,韩国精品一区二区三区

考研論壇

標(biāo)題: 最后一個爭議題 [打印本頁]

作者: nielei520 時間: 2013-1-23 16:03
標(biāo)題: 最后一個爭議題
只剩下第40題了 check還是dominant

作者: 030510532 時間: 2013-1-23 21:36
肯定上，少字也就扣1分的，而且你是湖南，比較松

作者: nielei520 時間: 2013-1-23 21:43

030510532 發(fā)表于 2013-1-23 21:36
肯定上，少字也就扣1分的，而且你是湖南，比較松

謝謝你這真不好說我實在慚愧不是裝* 六級630 BEC高級雅思7.5 居然考研考出個這么丟人的分?jǐn)?shù) 很傷心啊

作者: 還是愛著你 時間: 2013-1-23 22:14

nielei520 發(fā)表于 2013-1-23 21:43
謝謝你這真不好說我實在慚愧不是裝* 六級630 BEC高級雅思7.5 居然考研考出個這么丟人的分?jǐn)?shù) 很傷心啊 ...

真心佩服你的這三個英語實力。

作者: 還是愛著你 時間: 2013-1-23 22:15
你選的哪個？

作者: nielei520 時間: 2013-1-23 22:17

還是愛著你發(fā)表于 2013-1-23 22:14
真心佩服你的這三個英語實力。

佩服有何用？考研這么差我選的dominant 估計錯了

作者: 還是愛著你 時間: 2013-1-23 22:56

nielei520 發(fā)表于 2013-1-23 22:17
佩服有何用？考研這么差我選的dominant 估計錯了

估計你是發(fā)揮失常了感覺兩個選項都有一定道理有人也指出了CHECK這個選項的錯誤之處。看標(biāo)準(zhǔn)答案吧。

作者: bhyao 時間: 2013-1-24 00:25
為什么沒人選
Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress。。。。。

作者: jinghshe 時間: 2013-1-24 18:09
BEC高級？？？？？？樓主牛人，，，曾經(jīng)哦也考過，，，光榮的犧牲了，，，，可惜了我500大洋

作者: !感-杠-問? 時間: 2013-1-24 22:55
本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2013-1-24 22:57 編輯

Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

What can be learned from the last paragraph?
[A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
[B] Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion.
[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
[D] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

My choice is "B", for:
A. In my mind, the system of three powers seperation aims at balance. It is only the immigration laws that are "decided", or passed, by Congress. However, immigration issues are not all immigation laws, which always refers to three sections. So it's too simple to suggest the issues are decided by Congree; to be frank, the turn of phrase of 'decided' is somewhat similar to that of 'dominant' (which's in option D);
C. 'Coordination' implies that the Court is deliberately uniting behind the Congress, which seems more likely to be a joke. The last paragraph just tells us that the Court ‘rejected’ the claim of the administration in terms of the Congress's 'wishes', or bills;
D. With the reasoning above, while immigration issues couldn't be decided by Congress alone, this logic is also subjected to the government. What 'the administration was in essence asserting' is only its arbitrary assertion, and what it said cannnot always appear to be the reality. Notably, the tense of the alternative is simple present, which coud be read as a universal and eternal truth. Alas, even if it was modified as 'the Administration was once dominant over immigration issues', this would fail to be considerably out of question.

作者: zhuaiwen2013 時間: 2013-1-24 23:15
本帖最后由 zhuaiwen2013 于 2013-1-28 21:20 編輯

!感-杠-問? 發(fā)表于 2013-1-24 22:55
My choice is "B", for:
A. In my mind, the system of three powers seperation aims at balance. It is ...

兩個爭議題，在線廣告商和瀏覽器開發(fā)商那個，還有就是這個···
我看了你對這兩題的分析，果斷沒看懂！只看出了你深厚的英語功底，讓人望而卻步。這可能也是你想表現(xiàn)的，你的目的所在。但我還是覺得你不可信，我在心里對自己說“只要是你說的都不對”，我就阿Q一回了···
我沒有你們那么強的英語功底，我認(rèn)為D對，也不是我的個人分析···
因為我在新浪上看了四個輔導(dǎo)班的答案，三個選D，只有海天選了B，我相信那三個考研輔導(dǎo)界名師的功底一定比你還強，所以我會帶著D安心地過完年！

作者: aiqiyo 時間: 2013-1-24 23:23
選check…對應(yīng)對最后一句話的理解。

作者: 030510532 時間: 2013-1-24 23:47
我始終覺得check推理過度了。。。
我不認(rèn)可你的觀點，就是要挑戰(zhàn)你的權(quán)力嗎？

作者: huangchenjun 時間: 2013-1-24 23:59
這個還是看出卷老師吧有人說拒絕觀點不代表想制約而且最多是制約美國ZF在immigration的權(quán)利而不是制約美國ZF的權(quán)利過度推倒然后B的理解就是占優(yōu)勢 exclusively 這個詞然后有人說最后一句可以直接推倒B 然后別爭了等答案看命運吧

作者: !感-杠-問? 時間: 2013-1-25 00:33
本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2013-2-3 11:54 編輯

030510532 發(fā)表于 2013-1-24 23:47
我始終覺得check推理過度了。。。
我不認(rèn)可你的觀點，就是要挑戰(zhàn)你的權(quán)力嗎？ ...

But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.

Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

What can be learned from the last paragraph?
[A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
[B] Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
[D] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

Q: reject the Administration's claim→ intend to check the power of Administration?
A: As you can see, the three blue words are similar in meaning to each other. And the green are all what the Administration, or the federal government, or President Obama suggests. Here, 'reject' doesn't simply mean 'disagree'; instead, it seems equivalent to 'veto'. In the last paragraph, the key word of the first sentence is 'power', and the author hints the excess of the 'power' in the following sentences starting with 'But'. Therefore, 'justices intended to check the power of the Administration', and if they thought it was outgrowing an objection could be made, and thus the federal government must abide by it supposing the verdict comes into force.

作者: !感-杠-問? 時間: 2013-1-25 00:50

huangchenjun 發(fā)表于 2013-1-24 23:59
這個還是看出卷老師吧有人說拒絕觀點不代表想制約而且最多是制約美國ZF在immigration的權(quán)利而不是制約 ...

What can be learned from the last paragraph?
[A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
[B] Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
[D] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

The tenses of four options vary slightly. A and D are simple present, while B and C are simple past. A and D are talking about a certain truth or principle—say, the word 'usually' in option A implies the sentence doesn't direct at one incident, but all affairs on immigration issues. B and C, however, are just discussing about the recent affair on the immigration issue involving Congress, Administration, and Court. Also, please pay attention to 'the' before 'power of the Administration' which can define one kind of power (not whole), which the federal suggested this time.

作者: aiqiyo 時間: 2013-1-25 07:37

030510532 發(fā)表于 2013-1-24 23:47
我始終覺得check推理過度了。。。
我不認(rèn)可你的觀點，就是要挑戰(zhàn)你的權(quán)力嗎？ ...

你還是沒看懂…reject claim不是法官們口頭對奧巴馬說我們不同意，而是以具有法律強制力的判決，阻止了它的行動，所以你這個類比十分可笑。如果你對check這個選項的否定建立在這個基礎(chǔ)上，建議你換個理由。另外，你說的過度引申還是送給你選的dominant吧，請你花兩分鐘看看全文然后搞清最后一段的作用。最后我想說的是，在大多數(shù)人只記得選項，且時至今日對原文說了些什么，要表達(dá)什么完全模糊不清的情況下，所謂的爭議題的爭論本來就是沒太大意義的事情。你帶著dominant的念想安心過年吧。

作者: 812217862 時間: 2013-1-26 08:33

!感-杠-問? 發(fā)表于 2013-1-24 22:55
My choice is "B", for:
A. In my mind, the system of three powers seperation aims at balance. It is ...

表贊同你的觀點選check 我選錯了呵呵還有你的英語實力太強大了

作者: 日月生 時間: 2013-1-26 09:43
丁教主選的B

作者: huangchenjun 時間: 2013-1-26 10:11
But if Congress wanted to prevent states 這里But Prevent的是 STaTes Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim rejected 的是The administration was in essence asserting that 在 because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes情況下，So no state should be allowed to do so either 至始至終都沒有拒決ZF在這上面的Power 只是拒絕了州的Power

作者: aiqiyo 時間: 2013-1-26 10:33
樓上亮了…感杠問來打臉吧

作者: !感-杠-問? 時間: 2013-1-26 13:20

huangchenjun 發(fā)表于 2013-1-26 10:11
But if Congress wanted to prevent states 這里But Prevent的是 STaTes Every Justice rightly rejec ...

Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

聯(lián)邦ZF毫無疑問擁有一些專有權(quán)力，如國籍和國界的管控。但國會從沒禁止各州ZF在自己的能力范圍內(nèi)，對移民的身份進(jìn)行核查——要知道假如國會想這么做的話，它有的是辦法。當(dāng)局的主張，其根本邏輯是：因為聯(lián)邦ZF對國會關(guān)于移民核查的態(tài)度視而不見，所以各州ZF也應(yīng)該緊跟聯(lián)邦ZF的步伐。所有明智的法官都會反對這一駭人聽聞的主張——這點毋庸置疑。

作者: huangchenjun 時間: 2013-1-26 13:42
這樣翻譯考研英語會吃虧在中國出的題=.= 對移民的身份進(jìn)行核查——要知道假如國會想這么做的話，它有的是辦法文中沒法看出它有的是辦法因為聯(lián)邦ZF對國會關(guān)于移民核查的態(tài)度視而不見文中是說明不想要執(zhí)行國會的意愿不是視而不見有可能是見了卻不想要執(zhí)行中國考研英語的思路就是引申義容易吃虧

作者: huangchenjun 時間: 2013-1-26 13:44
而且我記得remarkable 一般是褒義卓越顯著頂多是非同尋常駭人聽聞明顯是主觀上往選項的翻譯有點不妥

作者: will1217 時間: 2013-1-27 01:46
One lesson of this case is that the Roberts Court does not practice the radical activism of liberal myth. Its very careful jurisprudence is aimed at protecting the U.S. federalist system, in which states and the federal government share sovereignty and both possess rights that the other is bound to honor.
We happen to share the Obama Administration's desire for a welcoming, nonpunitive immigration policy, but it can't accomplish that by asserting power it doesn't have. Full marks to the Court for striking the proper Constitutional balance.
這是"The Wall Street Journal"原文最后兩段。
各位閱后有何高見？

歡迎光臨考研論壇 (http://www.5522pp.com/)