ACT官方社會科學類閱讀樣題(附譯文及解析)

ACT閱讀考試文章類型是固定不變的,主要分為四種類型:小說、社會科學、人文科學、自然科學。而其中社會科學類文章主要取材於人類學、考古學、傳記、經濟、教育、地理、歷史、政治、心理學等。主要是以人或者社會群體作為研究對象。今天小編為大家介紹壹下ACT官方公布的社會科學類類閱讀樣題,我們壹起來看看吧!(還有譯文和解析哦!)

This passage is adapted from the chapter “Personality Disorders” in Introduction to Psychology, edited by Rita L. Atkinson and Richard C. Atkinson (©1981 by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.).(以下文章改編自Rita L. Atkinson和Richard C. Atkinson(©1981 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,Inc.)編輯的心理學導論“人格障礙”壹章。)

正文如下:

How should the law treat a mentally disturbed person who commits a criminal offense? Should individuals whose mental faculties are impaired be held responsible for their actions? These questions are of concern to social scientists, to members of the legal profession, and to individuals who work with criminal offenders.

法律如何對待精神紊亂犯罪的人?智力能力受損的人是否應對其行為負責?這些問題受到社會科學家,法律界人士以及與犯罪嫌疑人合作的個人的關心。

Over the centuries, an important part of Western law has been the concept that a civilized society should not punish a person who is mentally incapable of controlling his or her conduct. In 1724, an English court maintained that a man was not responsible for an act if “he doth not know what he is doing, no more than . . . a wild beast.” Modern standards of legal responsibility, however, have been based on the McNaghten decision

of 1843. McNaghten, a Scotsman, suffered the paranoid delusion that he was being persecuted by the English prime minister, Sir Robert Peel. In an attempt to kill Peel, he mistakenly shot Peel’s secretary. Everyone involved in the trial was convinced by McNaghten’s senseless ramblings that he was insane. He was judged not responsible by reason of insanity and sent to a mental hospital, where he remained until his death. But Queen Victoria was not pleased with the verdict—apparently she felt that political assassinations should not be taken lightly—and called on the House of Lords to review the decision. The decision was upheld and rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into writing. The McNaghten Rule states that a defendant may be found “not guilty by reason of insanity” only if he were so severely disturbed at the time of his act that

he did not know what he was doing, or that if he did know what he was doing, he did not know it was wrong.

幾個世紀以來,西方法律的壹個重要部分,就是壹個文明社會不應該懲罰壹個沒有能力控制自己的行為的人的觀念。1724年,壹家英國法院認為,如果壹個人不知道自己在做什麽,就對自己的行為不負責。這無非是…壹個野獸。然而,現代的法律責任標準是基於1843年的McNaghten的決定。蘇格蘭人麥克納恩特(McNaghten)有壹種偏執的錯覺,認為自己正受到英國首相羅伯特·皮爾(Robert Peel)的迫害。為了殺死皮爾,他錯誤地射殺了皮爾的秘書。所有參與審判的人都相信了麥那拉克的愚蠢的胡扯,他瘋了。他因精神錯亂而被判定不需要負責任,並被送到了精神病院,直到他去世。但是,維多利亞女王對判決不滿意,顯然她覺得不應該輕率地采取政治暗殺,並呼籲上議院審查這壹決定。這壹決定得到了支持,精神錯亂的法律定義也被寫入了書面。“麥克納根規則”規定,只要當被告人不知道自己在做什麽,或者他知道自己在做什麽而不知道是錯的,這種行為可能被認定為精神失常,而不犯罪。

The McNaghten Rule was adopted in the United States, and the distinction of knowing right from wrong remained the basis of most decisions of legal insanity for over a century. Some states added to their statutes the doctrine of “irresistible impulse,” which recognizes that some mentally ill individuals may respond correctly when asked if a particular act is morally right or wrong but still be unable to control their behavior.

美國采用了麥克納根規則,從錯誤中辨別是非的區別仍然是壹個多世紀以來大多數法律精神錯亂決策的基礎。有些國家將“不可抗拒的沖動”這壹原則添加到他們的法規中,認為壹些精神患者在被問及某壹特定行為是否在道德上是正確或錯誤的時候,他們仍然無法控制他們的行為。

During the 1970s, a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute, which states:“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” The word substantial suggests that “any” incapacity is not enough to avoid criminal responsibility but that “total” incapacity is not required either. The use of the word appreciate rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have some understanding of the moral or legal consequences of their behavior before they can be held criminally responsible.

在20世紀70年代,壹些州和聯邦法院通過了美國法律研究所提出的關於精神錯亂的更廣泛的法律定義, 法律定義是這樣說的:“如果當某種犯罪行為發生時,這個人由於精神疾病或缺陷,不負責其犯罪行為,那麽他就缺乏足夠的能力來理解他的行為的錯誤,或者使他的行為符合法律的要求。”實質性這個詞表明,“任何”無能為力都不足以避免刑事責任,但也不要求“全面”喪失工作能力。使用“欣賞”這個詞而不是“知道”這壹詞意味著對正確或錯誤的知識認識是不夠的。個人必須對其行為的道德或法律後果有壹定的了解,然後追究其刑事責任。

The problem of legal responsibility in the case of mentally disordered individuals is currently a topic of intense debate, and a number of legal and mental health professionals have recommended abolishing the insanity plea as a defense. The reasons for this recommendation are varied. Many experts believe that the current courtroom procedures—in which psychiatrists and psychologists for the prosecution and the defense present contradictory evidence as to the defendant’s mental state—are confusing to the jury and do little to help the cause of justice. Some also argue that the abuse of the insanity plea by clever lawyers has allowed too many criminals to escape conviction. Others claim that acquittal by reason of insanity often leads to a worse punishment (an indeterminate sentence )to an institution for the criminally insane that may confine a person for life) than being convicted and sent to prison (with the possibility of parole in a few years).

對於精神錯亂的個人來說,法律責任的問題目前是激烈辯論的話題,壹些法律和精神衛生專業人士建議取消精神錯亂的辯護,這種建議的理由是各不相同。許多專家認為,目前的法庭程序——在這方面,控方和辯方的精神科醫生和心理學家對被告的精神狀態提出了矛盾的證據——令陪審團感到困惑,對正義的原因起不到什麽作用。壹些人還辯稱,聰明的律師濫用精神錯亂的辯解讓太多的罪犯逃脫了定罪。另壹些人聲稱,因精神錯亂而被無罪釋放,往往會導致更惡劣的懲罰(壹個不確定的判決),而不是被判有罪並被送進監獄(在數年內假釋的可能)。

Despite the current controversy, actual cases of acquittal by reason of insanity are quite rare. Jurors seem reluctant to believe that people are not morally responsible for their acts, and lawyers, knowing that an insanity plea is apt to fail, tend to use it only as a last resort. In California in 1980, only 259 defendants (out of approximately 52,000)were successful in pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

盡管目前存在爭議,但因精神錯亂而被無罪釋放的案例相當罕見。陪審員似乎不願意相信,人們在道義上對他們的行為不負責,而律師知道,精神錯亂的抗辯容易失敗,他們傾向於只把它當作最後的手段。在1980年的加州,只有259名被告(約52,000名)因精神錯亂而沒有認罪。

act官網摳下來的圖片.jpg

Questions:

1)One of the author’s main points about the legal concept of responsibility in the passage is that:

A. the phrase “not guilty by reason of insanity” has made our legal system more efficient.

B. responsibility and guilt are legal concepts, and their meanings can be modified.

C. knowing right from wrong is a simple matter of admitting the truth to oneself.

D. people can become severely disturbed without a word of warning to anyone.

解析:這道題的正確答案為B。從文章的內容看,我們知道作者首先介紹了麥克納根規則,然後又講述了在1970年代,許多州法院和聯邦法院通過了壹項更廣泛的法律定義,修改了壹個精神紊亂的人的法律責任。文章又進壹步指出,“精神錯亂的人的法律責任問題目前是壹個激烈辯論的話題”這些都說明了壹個精神紊亂的人的法律責任標準是如何隨著時間的推移而修改的。

2)Based on the passage, the primary purpose for the 1970s redefinition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute was to:

E. eliminate the insanity defense from American courtrooms.

F. more precisely define the concepts of responsibility and intellectual capacity.

G. redefine legal insanity so that it might include as many criminals as possible.

H. apply the McNaghten Rule only to trials involving cases of mistaken identity.

解析:這道題的正確答案是F。根據文章標註的紅色的部分我們知道,“如果當某種犯罪行為發生時,這個人由於精神疾病或缺陷,不負責其犯罪行為,那麽他就缺乏足夠的能力來理解他的行為的錯誤,或者使他的行為符合法律的要求。” 也就是說20世紀70年代,美國法律學會將精神錯亂重新定義。

3)From information in the third and fourth paragraphs (lines 35–58) it can reasonably be inferred that the legal definition of insanity was changed in the 1970s after:

A.federal courts won a dispute with state courts over a proposal made by the American Law Institute.

B. the doctrine of “irresistible impulse” was found to contradict accepted notions of justice.

C. proponents of the McNaghten Rule had been using the insanity defense in far too many murder trials.

D. several courts found that justice was not always best served when the McNaghten Rule was applied.

解析:這道題的正確答案是D。通過“Some states added to their statutes the doctrine of ‘irresistible impulse”和“a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity”我們知道在某些情況下,司法不壹定是最好的。

4)According to the explanation provided in the fourth paragraph (lines 43–58), use of the word appreciate in the phrase “to appreciate the wrongfulness” (lines 48–49) instead of know implies which of the following?

E. The difference between right and wrong is something people feel rather than know, which makes deciding legal responsibility difficult.

F. The difference between right and wrong is something people feel rather than know, which makes deciding legal responsibility difficult.

G. The word appreciate suggests that an action and that action’s implications must be understood for there to be legal responsibility.

H. An insane person would “know” something the way a sane person would “know” something, and be able to appreciate that knowledge, too.

解析:這道題的正確答案是G。從“The use of the word appreciate rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have some understanding of the moral or legal consequences of their behavior before they can be held criminally responsible. ”我們知道他使用了“欣賞”這個詞,就意味著,在人們被追究刑事責任之前,他們“必須對他們行為的道德或法律後果有壹定的了解。”

5)The passage indicates that the McNaghten case became the basis for future decisions about legal insanity because:

A. he House of Lords upheld the verdict of the court despite considerable political pressure.

B. here had been an increase in cases of murder involving mistaken identity arising from delusions.

C. McNaghten was unable to convince the jury at his trial that he was incoherent and insane.

D. McNaghten used a gun to commit murder, thus aggravating the crime in the jury’s mind.

解析:這道題的正確答案是A。從“But Queen Victoria was not pleased with the verdict—apparently she felt that political assassinations should not be taken lightly—and called on the House of Lords to review the decision. The decision was upheld and rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into writing. ”我們知道不顧相當大的政治壓力,上議院維持了法院的裁決。

6)The passage states that McNaghten wanted to kill the English prime minister because the Scotsman thought that he:

E. would establish a confusing legal precedent.

F. had been rejected by Peel’s secretary.

G. would be better off in a mental hospital.

H. had been wronged by the minister.

解析:這道題的正確答案是H。從“a Scotsman, suffered the paranoid delusion that he was being persecuted by the English prime minister.”我們知道蘇格蘭人麥克納恩特有壹種偏執的錯覺,認為自己正受到英國首相羅伯特·皮爾(Robert的迫害,所以答案選H。

7)According to the passage, one of the reasons some mental health and legal groups want to abolish the insanity defense is that:

A. even clever lawyers are confused about when to use and when not to use it.

B. juries that must sort out conflicting testimony become confused, and justice suffers.

C. when it is invoked, even if the case is won, the punishment often ends up being too lenient.

D. innocent defendants are too often being punished unfairly by unsympathetic juries.

解析:這道題的正確答案選B。從“a number of legal and mental health professionals have recommended abolishing the insanity plea as a defense.”和“Many experts believe that the current courtroom procedures…are confusing to the jury.”我們知道壹些心理健康和法律團體想要廢除精神錯亂防衛的原因是目前的法庭程序令陪審團感到困惑。

8)The passage suggests that individuals who use the insanity defense:

E. are not permitted to do so unless it can be proved beforehand that they are really insane.

F. should be tried, convicted, and punished whether or not they are really insane.

G. are legally responsible for their actions even if a jury decides they are not guilty.

H. might risk a lifelong confinement even if acquitted by a jury, if the acquittal is based on insanity.

解析:這道題的正確答案是H。從“acquittal by reason of insanity often leads to a worse punishment (an indeterminate sentence to an institution for the criminally insane)我們知道,即使因為精神錯亂而無罪釋放是基於的話,陪審團也可能冒著終身監禁的危險。”

9)According to the passage, a lawyer contemplating using insanity as a defense for a client should do which of the following?

A. Carefully evaluate using the defense, since in actual practice it rarely works.

B. Assemble for trial a team of expert witnesses with a wide range of viewpoints on mental illness.

C. Make sure that the doctrine of “irresistible impulse” is not used by the prosecution in his or her client’s trial.

D. Recommend that the client be acquitted because he or she has been judged criminally insane by a doctor.

解析:這道題的正確答案是A。從“lawyers, knowing that an insanity plea is apt to fail, tend to use it only as a last resort”我們了解到,律師們知道,精神錯亂的申訴容易失敗,他們傾向於把它當作最後的手段。所以壹個律師如果想用精神錯亂作為壹個客戶的辯護應該仔細考慮壹下。

10)One of the main points made in the last paragraph is that insanity pleas were:

E. unconvincing to most juries in California in 1980.

F. used in most cases in California in 1980.

G. often successful in California in 1980.

H. popular with lawyers in California in 1980.

解析:這道題的正確答案是E。從“actual cases of acquittal by reason of insanity are quite rare” 和“In California in 1980, only 259 defendants (out of approximately 52,000)were successful in pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.”我們知道1980年在加州的大多數陪審團都沒有說服力。

那麽對於ACT閱讀社會科學類文章有什麽好的備考策略和解題技巧呢?

1)打好詞匯基礎。只有看懂單詞,才能理解文章句子,才能知道文章講的內容。

雖然ACT閱讀考試中並沒有SAT考試的句子填空部分,考生可以省去背誦大量學術性詞匯的工作,但是減少詞匯盲區無疑是提高閱讀速度的必經之路。

日常練習中,大家可以多看看各種科學公眾號,看新聞,廣泛攝取知識,這樣看文章的中心題材,即便是自己不知道的也會更加容易理解。

2)能夠準確分析文章的長難句。

接觸過ACT閱讀的同學都會感受到,在做題時,要根據題目中的關鍵信息或者行號回原文定位的,而在大多數情況下,定位的內容都是壹個長難句,我們只有在讀懂了長難句之後,才能把題目做出來。

大家在平時的練習中,可以每讀完壹篇文章,劃出裏面所有的長難句,進行句子結構劃分,每天劃分5-10句長難句,這樣堅持下來,閱讀長難句的能力會有壹定的提升。

3)大量刷題,熟能生巧。同時有壹個自己的錯題本,定時回顧錯題。

在規定的時間刷題,通過刷題總結ACT閱讀文章出題規律,掌握基本解題思路。當然在每壹次做完題之後,大家也可以把錯的題記在本子上了,定時回顧壹下自己做的錯題,這樣會起到事半功倍的效果。

4)做題的時候註意把握文章的表意和邏輯。

社會科學類文章出題套路壹般是固定的,往往有壹個什麽“現象”或者“問題”,然後通過壹定的研究,提出壹個什麽樣的“結論”、“解決方案”、“應用”或者“影響力”。妳要做的就是確定文章的“支點”,把文章的脈絡理清,這樣做題的時候,只需看懂題幹和選擇項,快速地定位關鍵點就可以了。

同時,科學題材的文章邏輯性都比較強,闡述的過程都非常之嚴謹。所以在瀏覽的過程中,也要註意文章中語義的起合轉成。特別是像but, yet, however…這樣表示轉折的詞。

5)做題的時候還要把控時間哦!建議像社會科學和自然科學這樣條理性比較強的文章,壹篇文章用壹篇文章用2-3分鐘處理掉,然後迅速轉到做題上來,做題時間控制在5分鐘之內。對於小說和人文類文章,讀文章的時間控制在5分鐘之內,做題時間控制在4分鐘以內。