2013年 考研英语一阅读理解（四选一） 第 4 篇 · 36–40 题答案与解析

题干 were overturned because they____ 是补全式陈述，问的是被推翻的具体原因，属对原文事实因果的客观索取。

主干 Three provisions ... were overturned 为被动态过去时；because they____ 中 they 回指 Three provisions，要求在选项里补出"它们做了什么"——选项是从句的延续，需在心里把题干和选项拼成完整句再判断。

• A)偷换概念

  disturbed the power balance between different states 说的是"不同州之间的权力平衡"，但原文冲突的两方是联邦与州（between the federal government and the states），不是州与州。

• B)✓ 正确
  • Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers↔overstepped the authority of federal immigration law

  预判"侵入联邦专属"与 overstepped the authority of federal immigration law 在动词+名词层面双双对上，锁定 B。

• C)与原文相反

  deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers 说的是"剥夺了联邦警察的宪法权力"，但原文恰恰相反——是亚利桑那侵入了联邦权力 intruded on the federal's privileged powers，并非剥夺；且原文谈的是 Congress/federal government 的立法权，从未提 federal police。

• D)无中生有

  contradicted both the federal and state policies 说同时与联邦和州的政策相违背，但原文只说亚利桑那条款与联邦权冲突，并未说它与州自己的政策也冲突——州法本身正是亚利桑那"州"颁布的。

题干 On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4? 限定段落、问事实，无 infer/imply 等推断词，属定位即得型细节题。

倒装疑问句：On which of the following did the Justices agree 还原为 The Justices agreed on which of the following，介词 on 与 agree 搭配，提示选项要填"同意的对象"——一个名词性内容，而非事件。

• A)答非所问

  Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement 谈"国会介入移民执法"，原文确实提到 Congress envisioned 与 encourages，但题问的是 Justices agreed on which，原文这段是 Justices 同意"州警可核查身份"，不是同意"国会介入"——主体与对象不匹配。

• B)与原文相反

  Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information 说联邦官员有"扣留"移民信息的义务，但原文 explicitly encourages state officers to share information 说的恰恰是"分享"——share 与 withhold 反义。

• C)✓ 正确
  • joint federal-state immigration enforcement↔States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement
  • explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues↔legitimate role

  预判中的"州有合法角色"与 States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement 三个核心成分（state/legitimate/enforcement）一一对应，锁定 C。

• D)过度推断

  States' independence from federal immigration law 说"州独立于联邦移民法"，但原文 cooperate with federal colleagues 强调的是"合作"而非"独立"——D 项实质把合作关系夸成对抗/独立关系。

题干 It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that 含 inferred，是典型推断题信号词。

形式主语 it 句型：It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts____，that 引导宾语从句缺谓语和宾语，由四个选项各自补齐——选项是从句的谓语部分，比较时先在原文锁定法案与什么立场绑定，再去对四个谓语。

• A)✓ 正确
  • defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts↔stood in favor of the states

  预判"法案与州权同向"和 stood in favor of the states 在"立场偏向州"这一点上完全等价，锁定 A。

• B)与原文相反

  supported the federal statute 说该法案支持联邦法规，但原文该法案被用来辩护 state privileges（州权），与 federal 方向相反。

• C)与原文相反

  undermined the states' interests 说该法案削弱了州的利益，但原文用 defense of state privileges going back to 表明法案与州权同向，方向正相反。

• D)无中生有

  violated the Constitution 说该法案违反宪法，但原文 P5 通篇只在论"宪政逻辑"与"州权辩护"，并未对该法案本身的合宪性下任何判断。

题干 The White House claims that its power of enforcement____ 问的是"白宫主张其执法权如何"，是对原文中一方观点的客观转述，属观点性细节题。

The White House claims that its power of enforcement____：claim 后接 that 宾语从句，从句主语 its power of enforcement（its 回指 The White House），选项是从句谓语——比对时把每个选项接到 "its power of enforcement ___" 后读通顺。

• A)与原文相反

  is dependent on the states' support 说白宫执法权依赖于各州支持，但原文白宫主张恰恰是"不依赖州，甚至可以否决州法"——dependent 与原文的支配关系反向。

• B)答非所问

  is established by federal statutes 说白宫执法权"由联邦法规所确立"，但原文白宫的主张恰恰是"即便州法合乎联邦法条文（complied with federal statutes to the letter）也可推翻"——它要的是凌驾于法条之外的自由裁量权，并不是在论自己权力的来源。

• C)✓ 正确
  • it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with↔outweighs that held by the states

  预判"白宫执法权位阶高于州法"与 outweighs that held by the states 在比较结构（联邦 > 州）上一致，锁定 C。

• D)与原文相反

  rarely goes against state laws 说白宫执法权"很少违背州法"，但原文白宫主张"可以否决任何州法"，且作者批评其频繁与州法冲突——rarely 与原文表达的高频对抗完全相反。

题干 What can be learned from the last paragraph? 含 "can be learned"，与 infer 同义，是末段推断题。

What can be learned from the last paragraph? 是简单 wh- 问句，结构无陷阱；难点不在语法而在末段评价性副词（rightly、remarkable）的态度方向。

• A)以偏概全

  Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress 说"移民事务通常由国会决定"，原文 if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could 仅说明国会有此权力，但并未论"通常由国会决定"的一般规律；且题目问 last paragraph 的核心信息（大法官的制衡），不是移民事务的归属机制。

• B)与原文相反

  The Administration is dominant over immigration issues 说行政当局在移民问题上占主导，但末段恰恰是作者+大法官集体驳回行政当局这种主导诉求，Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim 方向相反。

• C)无中生有

  Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress 说大法官想加强与国会的协作，但末段全在论"大法官驳回行政当局的越权主张"，从未涉及大法官与国会的协作关系；且 its 在选项中所指含糊，与原文逻辑无对应。

• D)✓ 正确
  • Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim↔Justices intended to check the power of the Administration
  • 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.↔check the power of the Administration

  预判"大法官在制衡行政当局"与 Justices intended to check the power of the Administration 在主体（Justices）、动作（check）、对象（the Administration）三项上完全对应，锁定 D。