6.13 大学英语六级/考研英语阅读模拟试题【难度9.4】

Section II Reading Comprehension 

Part A 

Directions: Read the following four texts. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. 

Text 4

Quick quiz: If a federal agency wants to fine you for alleged misconduct, it must first do which of the following? Give you a jury trial, afford you a hearing, or at least point to an unambiguous statute granting it the authority? If you picked "none of the above," you are in splendid company. In a pair of closely watched cases, the US Supreme Court agreed with you.

The two cases present different facts, but each raises troubling issues about the power to punish. In both Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T and Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the justices upheld multimillion-dollar fines imposed by federal regulators. Because the corporate interests lost, the decisions have been hailed as evidence that the justices aren’t biased toward business. But the issue that should concern us isn’t who won; it’s how the court chose to give a broad rather than a narrow reading to the government’s punitive power. In a democracy, there is no power more dangerous.

Let’s start with the FCC case. After an investigation, the commission assessed fines totaling $100 million against two telecom giants for violating confidentiality rules. The carriers paid, then sued for a refund, arguing that the FCC can impose fines only after a jury trial. The Supreme Court ruled that the commission actually lacks authority to impose mandatory fines without a court order, meaning the carriers had no obligation to pay a penny.

That makes sense. So, will the carriers get their $100 million back? The court's concluding footnote left this strangely ambiguous, noting it expressed no view on what relief might be available. As the lone dissenter pointed out, the FCC had called its notice an "order" and told the companies to pay within 30 days. If telecom giants think it the better part of valor to pay huge fines rather than fight—even when they legally owe nothing—what hope is there for ordinary folk when facing a threatening government directive?

Then there’s Sripetch. The issue was whether the SEC can require a fraudster to disgorge profits without showing that any investor lost a penny. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the answer is yes. The problem arises because the SEC demanded the fine under a statute that uses the term “disgorgement” without defining it. Legal history reveals split interpretations: sometimes it means giving back what was taken from victims, while other times it takes a broader definition.

The court upheld the broader definition, allowing the government to take all the money even when nobody has been demonstrably harmed. The underlying issue is not about defending fraudsters; it is that the statute itself fails to resolve the meaning of disgorge. When Congress chooses to leave the scope of government punitive authority unclear, it is better for the cause of liberty if judges read that lack of clarity as narrowly as possible. A ruling for a smaller fine might have had the salutary effect of encouraging Congress to clarify its intent.

Big business does not have many friends these days, and the public is often supposed to cheer when corporations lose. However, the government’s power to punish should be crystal clear and include robust procedural safeguards. If those arguments do not work for massive corporations, they certainly will not protect the rest of us.

36. Why does the author think the public's reaction to the Supreme Court rulings is misguided?[A] They mistakenly believe that the justices demonstrated a systematic bias against federal agencies.[B] They celebrate the defeat of corporate interests while overlooking the perilous expansion of regulatory authority.[C] They attribute the multimillion-dollar fines primarily to the absence of unambiguous statutory guidelines.[D] They deliberately downplay the financial damages inflicted upon the telecommunications industry.

37. The predicament of the telecom giants in the FCC case reveals that ________.[A] mandatory fines can only be rightfully collected after a rigorous jury trial[B] major corporations routinely exploit legal loopholes to secure massive refunds[C] the sheer intimidation of federal directives can compel compliance even without legal obligations[D] federal regulators frequently bypass court orders to penalize monopolistic behaviors

38. In the Sripetch case, the author criticizes the Supreme Court's decision primarily because it ________.[A] endorsed an expansive interpretation of a legally ambiguous statute at the expense of individual liberty[B] allowed the SEC to compensate investors who had not demonstrably suffered any financial loss[C] deliberately exempted fraudsters from surrendering their ill-gotten financial gains[D] overturned the historical precedent regarding the precise definition of disgorgement

39. The author suggests that a ruling in favor of the fraudster would have been beneficial by ________.[A] standardizing the historical definitions of "disgorgement" across all federal appellate courts[B] discouraging federal regulators from pursuing cases without concrete evidence of investor harm[C] mitigating the punitive financial burdens placed on vulnerable corporate entities[D] compelling the legislative branch to explicitly articulate the boundaries of punitive measures

40. Which of the following best represents the author's underlying philosophy in the text?[A] The overarching priority of the judicial system should be to dismantle corporate monopolies.[B] Federal agencies should be granted broader autonomy to effectively penalize sophisticated financial fraud.[C] The legitimacy of punitive state power relies fundamentally on stringent statutory precision and procedural protections.[D] Public opinion serves as an unreliable metric for evaluating the fairness of Supreme Court verdicts.

附注：根据历年考研英语真题阅读题源外刊等，摘选最新文章，模拟仿真出题。

参考答案见以下。

Quick look: BCADC

36.【正确答案】B【解析】题型：推理判断题定位： 第二段“Because the corporate interests lost, the decisions have been hailed as evidence that the justices aren’t biased toward business. But the issue that should concern us isn’t who won; it’s how the court chose to give a broad rather than a narrow reading to the government’s punitive power.”分析： 原文指出，因为企业败诉了，人们在欢呼（hailed），认为这证明了法官不偏袒企业。但作者笔锋一转（But），认为真正值得担忧的不是谁赢了，而是法院“扩大了解释政府的惩罚权力（broad reading to the government's punitive power）”。选项 B“他们庆祝企业利益的失败，却忽视了监管机构权力危险的扩张”是对这一逻辑转折的精准概括。干扰项：[A] 错误地认为法官表现出对联邦机构的系统性偏见（张冠李戴，公众认为法官没有偏袒企业，且并未认为法官对机构有偏见）；[C] 将巨额罚款主要归因于缺乏明确的法定指导方针（因果倒置，缺乏明确法律是导致最高法院“扩大解释”的背景，而非公众欢呼的原因）；[D] 故意淡化对电信行业造成的财务损失（动机揣测，文中并未提及公众故意淡化财务损失）。

37.【正确答案】C【解析】题型：例证推断题定位： 第四段“If telecom giants think it the better part of valor to pay huge fines rather than fight—even when they legally owe nothing—what hope is there for ordinary folk when facing a threatening government directive?”分析： 作者指出，连电信巨头这种庞然大物，在面对政府机构的一纸公文时，即便在法律上“一分钱都不欠（legally owe nothing）”，也觉得乖乖交钱比抗争更明智。这说明政府指令的威慑力极大。选项 C“仅仅是联邦指令的威吓力就能在没有法律义务的情况下迫使人服从”深刻揭示了该例子的社会学意义。干扰项：[A] 强制性罚款只有在严格的陪审团审判后才能合法收取（偷换概念，这是企业起诉时的主张，但最高法院并未支持这一点，而是说FCC不能在没有法院命令的情况下强制罚款）；[B] 大公司经常利用法律漏洞获取巨额退款（事实相反，原文说最高法院对是否退款态度含糊，大公司并没有成功利用漏洞退款）；[D] 联邦监管机构经常绕过法院命令来惩罚垄断行为（修饰错位，FCC确实绕过了，但文章举此例是为了强调“巨头也害怕”，而非探讨“反垄断行为”）。

38.【正确答案】A【解析】题型：观点态度题定位： 第五、六段。“The problem arises because the SEC demanded the fine under a statute that uses the term ‘disgorgement’ without defining it... When Congress chooses to leave the scope... unclear, it is better for the cause of liberty if judges read that lack of clarity as narrowly as possible.”分析： 在 Sripetch 案中，国会关于“追缴（disgorgement）”的法律定义不清。作者批判最高法院的原因在于，法官没有为了保护自由而进行“狭义解释（narrowly）”，反而支持了政府的“扩大解释（broader definition）”。选项 A“以牺牲个人自由为代价，认可了对法律模糊法规的扩张性解释”完美复刻了作者的法理学批判。干扰项：[B] 允许SEC赔偿那些没有明显遭受财务损失的投资者（事实错误，原文指出政府拿走了所有的钱/take all the money，并没有赔偿给未受损的投资者）；[C] 故意豁免欺诈者交出他们非法获取的经济利益（事实相反，最高法院是让欺诈者交出了钱，作者也声明“我的问题不在于欺诈者要交出不义之财”）；[D] 推翻了关于追缴精确定义的历史先例（无中生有，原文说历史上的解释是“分裂的/split interpretations”，不存在统一的先例被推翻）。

39.【正确答案】D【解析】题型：细节推断题定位： 第六段最后一句“A ruling for a smaller fine might have had the salutary effect of encouraging Congress to clarify its intent.”分析： 作者认为，如果法官作出有利于欺诈者的判决（即罚款较少），这会产生一个“有益的效果（salutary effect）”——鼓励国会“澄清其意图（clarify its intent）”。言下之意，法官不该帮国会补漏洞，而应倒逼国会去明确法律。选项 D“迫使立法部门明确阐述惩罚措施的边界”是极其精妙的同义转述（legislative branch 对应 Congress；articulate the boundaries 对应 clarify its intent）。干扰项：[A] 统一所有联邦上诉法院对“追缴”的历史定义（张冠李戴，统一解释是法官的作为，而作者希望的是促使“国会/立法机构”去定义）；[B] 阻止联邦监管机构在没有确凿投资者受损证据的情况下追究案件（过度推断，作者的核心诉求是“立法明确”，而非探讨监管机构的办案标准）；[C] 减轻施加在脆弱企业实体上的惩罚性财务负担（概念偷换，本案的主角是 fraudster/欺诈者，并非“脆弱的企业实体”）。

40.【正确答案】C【解析】题型：主旨态度题定位： 全文逻辑结构及最后一段“However, the government’s power to punish should be crystal clear and include robust procedural safeguards.”分析： 文章的核心并不在于为企业或欺诈者辩护，而是警惕政府惩罚权力的无序扩张。作者在最后一段明确指出其底层哲学：政府惩罚的权力必须“极其清晰（crystal clear）”，并且要包含强有力的“程序保障（procedural safeguards）”。选项 C“国家惩罚权力的合法性从根本上依赖于严格的法定精确性和程序保护”完美地升华了这一法治精神。干扰项：[A] 司法系统的首要任务应该是瓦解企业垄断（偏离主旨，这是反垄断法的话题，与本文对政府权力的反思无关）；[B] 联邦机构应被赋予更广泛的自主权，以有效惩罚复杂的金融欺诈（态度完全相反，作者极力反对赋予机构更广泛的模糊权力）；[D] 公众舆论是评估最高法院裁决公平性的不可靠指标（局部细节，这只是第一段引入的话题，不能代表全文关于“限制政府权力”的核心法理哲学）。

【词汇注释】

【长难句剖析】

When Congress chooses to leave the scope of government punitive authority unclear, it is better for the cause of liberty if judges read that lack of clarity as narrowly as possible.

拆解：When 引导时间状语从句，主干为 Congress chooses to leave the scope... unclear（当国会选择让政府惩罚权力的范围保持不明确时）。

句意： 当国会选择对政府惩罚权力的范围含糊其辞时，为了自由，法官最好将这种不明确性作尽可能狭义的解读。

【参考译文】

快速测试：如果联邦机构想因所谓的违规行为对你进行罚款，它首先必须做以下哪一项？让你接受陪审团审判，给你举行听证会，还是至少指出一项明确无误的、赋予其该权力的法规？如果你选择了“以上都不是”，那么你有极好的同伴。因为在两起备受关注的案件中，美国最高法院与你的看法一致。

这两个案件的情节不同，但都提出了关于惩罚权力的令人不安的问题。在“联邦通信委员会（FCC）诉AT&T案”和“斯里佩奇诉美国证券交易委员会（SEC）案”中，法官们都维持了联邦监管机构开出的数百万美元的罚单。由于企业利益遭受了损失，这些裁决被欢呼为法官没有偏袒企业的证据。但我们应该关注的问题不是谁赢了；而是在这两个案件中，法院为何都选择对政府的惩罚权力进行“扩大”而非“狭义”的解释。在一个民主国家，没有比这更危险的权力了。

让我们从FCC案开始。经过调查，委员会对两家电信巨头开出了总计1亿美元的罚单，理由是它们违反了客户位置数据的保密规定。运营商交了钱，然后提起诉讼要求退款，理由是FCC只有在陪审团审判后才能实施罚款。最高法院裁定，如果没有法院的命令，委员会实际上没有权力强制罚款，这意味着运营商根本没有义务支付一分钱。

这听起来很合理。那么，运营商能拿回那1亿美元吗？法院在结尾的脚注中留下了一个奇怪的含糊表述，指出它对可以提供何种救济不发表意见。正如唯一的异议法官所指出的那样，FCC在通知中将其称为“命令”，并要求公司在30天内付款。如果连电信巨头在收到政府机构这样的指令时，即便在法律上不欠一分钱，也认为交巨额罚款比抗争更明智，那么普通人在面对具有威胁性的政府指令时，还有什么希望呢？

接着是斯里佩奇案。争议的焦点在于，SEC是否可以在没有证明任何投资者损失了一分钱的情况下，要求欺诈者退还（disgorge）利润。最高法院以全票通过裁定：可以。问题出在这里：SEC是依据一项使用了“退还（disgorgement）”一词但未对其进行定义的法规来要求罚款的。法律历史显示出不同的解释：有时它的意思是归还从受害者那里拿走的东西，而有时它的定义更宽泛。

法院支持了更广泛的定义，允许政府在没有证明任何人受到伤害的情况下拿走所有的钱。根本问题不在于为欺诈者辩护；而在于法规本身没有解决“退还”的含义。当国会选择让政府惩罚权力的范围保持模糊时，为了自由的事业，法官最好将这种不明确性作尽可能狭义的解读。做出有利于欺诈者的裁决（即较少的罚款），可能会产生一种有益的效果，那就是鼓励国会澄清其立法意图。

如今，大企业没有多少朋友，公众似乎也理应在企业败诉时欢呼。但是，政府的惩罚权力应该是极其清晰的，并且要包含强有力的程序保障。如果这些论点对大型企业都不起作用，它们当然也保护不了我们普通人。

附注：