最后一個爭議題

zhuaiwen2013 · 發表于 2013-1-24 23:15

本帖最后由 zhuaiwen2013 于 2013-1-28 21:20 編輯

!感-杠-問? 發表于 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！

aiqiyo · 發表于 2013-1-24 23:23

選check…對應對最后一句話的理解。

030510532 · 發表于 2013-1-24 23:47

我始終覺得check推理過度了。。。
我不認可你的觀點，就是要挑戰你的權力嗎？

huangchenjun · 發表于 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的權利而不是制約美國ZF的權利過度推倒然后B的理解就是占優勢 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

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2013-1-25 00:33

本帖最后由 !感-杠-問? 于 2013-2-3 11:54 編輯

030510532 發表于 2013-1-24 23:47
我始終覺得check推理過度了。。。
我不認可你的觀點，就是要挑戰你的權力嗎？ ...

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.

!感-杠-問? · 發表于 2013-1-25 00:50

huangchenjun 發表于 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.

aiqiyo · 發表于 2013-1-25 07:37

030510532 發表于 2013-1-24 23:47
我始終覺得check推理過度了。。。
我不認可你的觀點，就是要挑戰你的權力嗎？ ...

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，在大多數人只記得選項，且時至今日對原文說了些什么，要表達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。

812217862 · 發表于 2013-1-26 08:33

!感-杠-問? 發表于 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

日月生 · 發表于 2013-1-26 09:43

丁教主選的B

huangchenjun · 發表于 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

		自動登錄	找回密碼
密碼			注冊

[交流] 最后一個爭議題