精读1


题 目 排 序: 题目类型  |  题目热度  |  题目难度

答 题 方 式: 单题练习(每做一题核对一题答案)   |    模拟考试(做完所有题一次性核对答案)

【1】 单选

  

  The case of the Sun journalists charged with paying public officials for information has been a troubling one in many respects. It is good that they were acquitted last week, but the prosecution leaves many difficult questions for News Corp, the ultimate owner of the Sun.
  First the good news. Jurors are reluctant to convict journalists when they see even the slightest evidence of a public interest being served by their stories. Some of the material purchased by the journalists was tittle-tattle. But other tipoffs led to legitimate stories that should have been published.
  For News Corp, the case raises serious questions that should be considered at the highest levels of the company. The first is a question of responsibility. There was a nasty taste at the trial of the small people being thrown to the wolves while the big people, were sheltered It was no secret that the Sun paid public officials, including police officers. The cash payments were signed off and known about by senior executives. And yet, at the end of the day, it was the foot soldiers who were sent for trial while the officer class watched from afar.
  This leads to a second, even more troubling, aspect of the company's behaviour. For years it denied knowledge of, and obstructed all attempts to discover, evidence of industrial scale phone hacking within another newspaper in its stable, the News o f the World. When that game was finally up - and maybe partly motivated by a panic desire to save senior editors and corporate image - the company did an extraordinary thing. It handed over millions upon millions of editorial emails to the police. This was done - without the consent or knowledge of the reporters - by a company that had sanctioned the payments in the first place.
  The final troubling question is this. While we welcome the acquittal of the journalists, there are a number of public officials who have served, or are serving, jail sentences as a result of News Corp's behaviour. We have limited sympathy for them. Public servants shouldn't sell stories about the things they see in the course of their duties. No one welcomes the thought of their nurse or police selling personal information to the press. Genuine whistleblowers act from a desire to expose injustice, not to make some money. Yet there is something uncomfortable about journalists walking free while their sources are put into prison.
  This ought to make all newspapers think twice about their approach to paying sources. In the past journalists have defended the practice on the grounds that (a) everyone's always done it; (b) there's a market in information, just like anything else. But the recent cases involving Sun journalists show the dangers. The relationship between source and reporter is complicated enough without adding the element of moral compromise which is introduced by handing over money. If payment is involved, it is strongly arguable that this should be declared at the time of publication .

摘编自《The Guardian》(2015-03-22)


1. According to the first two paragraphs, the verdict in the trial of the Sun journalists is _____.
[A] right
[B] unfair
[C] controversial
[D] illegitimate

  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【6.7
【2】 单选

2. By saying "a question of responsibility", the author targets his criticism at _____.
[A] Journalists
[B] Public officials
[C] Senior executives
[D] Jurors
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【3】 单选

3. Which of the following provides a right comment on News Corp's handing over editorial emails to the police?
[A] The company made amends for its faults by good deeds.
[B] The company did a terrible and hypocritical thing.
[C] The company made an extraordinary and admirable act.
[D] The company attempted to obstruct the discovery of facts.
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【4】 单选

4. The author's attitude towards the public officials who act as information sources is one of _____.
[A] appreciation
[B] criticism
[C] understanding
[D] sympathy
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【5】 单选

5. Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?
[A] Newspapers should stop the practice of paying sources for stories.
[B] Information should be regarded as common marketable goods.
[C] Paying news sources is currently a disputable journalistic practice.
[D] Paying for information discounts the value of publications.
  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
  • D.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0
【6】 单选

[A] 全文掌握

[B] 粗心

[C] 理解不够

【全文精解】

  本文选自The Guardian《卫报》2015. 03. 22一篇题为The Guardian view on the Sun journalists' ac-quittal: the right verdict(卫报就“《太阳报》记者被判无罪”的观点:正确的判决)的文章。作者就该案所反映的新闻集团(《太阳报》所有者)所存在责任感缺失及相关的多种问题进行了深入揭示。本文主要亮点有:
①话题为“热议案件+社会问题”;表述简洁有力、且运用比喻等多种修辞手法;
②文章结构明晰,按照“指出判决结果(第一段)——说明判决合理性(第二段)——层层分析案件反映的问题(第三至五段)——就案件所涉及的核心问题提出建议(第六段)’’的脉络展开论述。

  第一段概述判决结果及判决影响。首先引出“《太阳报》记者被控向公务人员购买消息案”;随后指出判决结果“《太阳报》记者被判无罪”,表明作者对判决的赞同态度,并进一步指出案件给《太阳报》所有者新闻集团留下许多难题。
主要逻辑衔接是:
①case(案件)、charge(控告)、acquit(无罪释放)、prosecution(起诉)等相关词汇形成的语义场表明本段在围绕“一起案例的判决”进行论述。
②第二句中they回指the Sun journalists、the Sun原词复现,将两句紧密衔接。
核心关键词为:①It is good(是件好事);
②leaves many difficult questions for News Corp(留给新闻集团许多难题)

  第二段评论判决结果。首先将读者引至本案体现的“好消息”;随后具体说明:陪审员因记者们的报道注重证据、关注公共利益而不愿判定其有罪;记者所买新闻素材构成了原本就该发表的合法报道。
主要逻辑衔接是:
①本段为“总——分”关系:第一句以good news奠定基调,第二至四句具体说明。
②段中stories 一词复现、material purchased和tipoffs同指,共同凸显关注点“记者所买新闻素材”及其在“新闻报道”中的使用。
③第三、四句以Some of...But other...相呼应,将两句紧密衔接的同时将作者语义重点拉至第四句。核心关键词为:good news(好消息)。

  第三至五段层层揭示案件所反映出的新闻集团存在的严重问题。第三段指出新闻集团存在问题一:责任问题。段落首先指出本案件提出了新闻集团高层应予以考虑的严肃问题;随后着眼第一个问题——责任问题;最后具体说明高层管理人员的不负责任:自己当初签署并知晓记者购买新闻素材的行为,审判中却将小人物推出去受罚,自己置身事外。主要逻辑衔接是:①第一句以For News Corp实现相对第二段的话题转移,并回应第一段末the prosecution leaves many difficult questions for NewsCorp,进入对“新闻集团存在问题”的论述。②第二句The first is a question of responsibility承上启下,回应首句serious questions,进入第一个问题“责任问题(a question of responsibility)"的论述。③第三至六句使用修辞手法,以small people,foot soldiers指代接受审判的记者,以big people,the officerclass指代semor executives,并以And yet形成转折、凸显矛盾情形,具体说明“新闻集团高层的不负责任”:当初签署且知晓记者购买新闻素材的行为,审判中却完全置身事外。核心关键词为:a question ofresponsibility(责任问题)。

  第四段揭示新闻集团存在的问题二:行为问题。首先指出该新闻集团“责任感缺失”导致另一问题“公司行为问题”;随后举例说明:该公司多年来一直否认知晓,并极力阻挠任何人去发现,其旗下另一家报纸《世界新闻报》进行行业规模的电话窃听的证据,且在阴谋暴露后在记者毫不知情的情形下将多封编辑邮件交予警方。主要逻辑衔接是:①第一句以This leads to...回指上段所述“责任感缺失问题”,并引出源于此的另一问题:公司行为(the company's behavior)。②第二句以it、its回指the company(News Corp);denied knowledge of(拒绝承认知情)、obstructed...(阻挠……发现真相)凸显其不负责任的行为。③第三至五句以When that game was finally up回应For years,进一步指出公司不负责任的做法;其中第四句it回指the company、并具体说明an extraordinary thing;第五句This指代第四句内容、引出作者对新闻集团不负责任做法的进一步揭露。核心关键词为:the company's behaviour(公司行为)。

  第五段进一步指出新闻集团应考虑的另一问题:自己作为信息购买者被免除责任,作为消息来源的多名公务人员却被判入狱。段落首先引出对“最后一个令人不安问题”的介绍;随后具体说明:多名公务人员因为新闻集团的行为遭受监禁之刑。虽然他们并不值得同情,但“购买信息的新闻集团能够免除责任,而作为信息源的公务人员却遭受监禁”这一情形还是让人有些不舒服(即:这一问题有待解决)。主要逻辑衔接是:①段首The final troubling question回应前面两段the first,the second,实现段落清晰衔接。②段落为“总分”结构,首句以this提领全段,其余句子对this进行阐释;且第二至六句和第七句以While...Yet...  形成“退步——转折”逻辑。③第二至五句以public officials...them...public servants...nurse or police近义指代“公务人员’’,并以limited sympathy,shouldn't,no one wel-comes...表明对“公务人员出卖信息行为’’的谴责态度。第六句则以正面检举行为“为了暴露不公(froma desire to expose injustice)"反衬公务人员为了钱财出卖信息(to make some money)的错误性。④第七句相对第二至六句发生转折,直接回应首句the final troubling question,指出“购买信息的新闻集团能够免除责任,而作为信息源的官员却遭受监禁’’这一情形让人有些不舒服(这是一个需要新闻集团严肃考虑的麻烦问题)。核心关键词为:journalists walking free while their sources...are put into prison(记者们获得了自由,而其源头却被判入狱)。

  第六段就解决问题提出建议。首先指出上述问题的存在使得所有报纸都应重新考虑自己购买信息的方式;随后说明记者们一直以来为这一行为辩护的理由;然后转而指出此案表明了这一行为的危险性;最后提出建议“涉及到消息买卖时,强烈建议在发表报道时说明信息来源”。主要逻辑衔接是:①第一句This概括上述问题,ought to引出针对上述问题的建议:报纸重新考虑自己购买信息的方式。②第二句以In the past引出过去记者购买信息基于的理由,并以(a)…(b)进行列举。③第三句以But引发转折,指出最近案件表明了这一行为的危险性,dangers和上句defended the practice on the grounds对比,说明“付钱给消息源”的行为尚属争议行为,第四句进一步说明这一行为的“危险性”:作为一种道德妥协,它使得记者和消息源之间原本复杂的关系更加难以界定。④第五句以payment回应handingover money,针对其“危险性’’,就“付钱给消息源”行为提出建议:在发表新闻时作出声明。核心关键词为:think twlce about their approach to paying sources(重新考虑自己购买信息的方式)。

    

【全文翻译】

  《太阳报》记者被控向公务人员买消息案从许多方面来看都是一起麻烦的案例。上周记者们被判无罪是件好事,但此案给新闻集团,《太阳报》的最终所有者,留下了许多难题。

  首先看好消息。当陪审员看到记者们的新闻报道中就连关于公共利益的最细微的证据都予以了考虑,便不愿定其有罪。记者所买素材中,一些是闲言碎语。但另一些密告则构成了原本就该发表的合法报道。

  对于新闻集团,本案件提出了公司最高层应予以考虑的严肃问题。首先是责任问题。审判期间有一种令人不快的味道:小人物被扔出去受罚,大人物却被庇护。《太阳报》付钱给包括警察在内的公务人员早已不是秘密。这种金钱交易由高层管理人员所签署并知晓。然而,到头来被拉去接受审判的却是底层士兵,而军官阶级则在远方观看。

  这导致了第二个更加令人不安的问题,即该公司的行事方式。多年来,它一直否认知晓,也极力阻挠任何人去发现,其旗下另一家报纸《世界新闻报》进行行业规模的电话窃听的证据。当阴谋最终大白于天下时——可能部分原因是出于“保护高层编辑和公司形象”的恐慌欲望——该公司做了一件非同寻常的事情。它将千万封编辑邮件交给了警方。这是最初批准交易的公司所作出的行为——没有记者的同意或知情。

  最后一个令人不安的问题如下。在我们为记者的无罪释放舒一口气时,许多公务人员却因新闻集团的行为已经或者正在遭受监禁之刑。但我们对他们的同情非常有限。公务人员不应将其履行义务期间看到的事情拿来出卖。没有人会喜欢与自己打交道的护士或警察将自己的个人信息卖给媒体。真正的检举者是出于暴露不公的愿望,而非是为了赚点钱财。然而“记者们获得了自由,而信息源头被判入狱”这一情形却让人有些不舒服。

  这应该使得所有报纸都重新考虑自己购买信息的方式。过去记者们为这一行为辩护的理由是(a)大家一直在这样做;(b)信息有其市场,就像其他任何事物一样。但是《太阳报》记者涉人案显示出了这一行为的危险性。在不涉及由金钱交易带来的道德妥协时,信息提供者与记者的关系就已经足够复杂。如果涉及到买卖则强烈建议在发表时作出声明。

  • A.
  • B.
  • C.
登录后可以做题并查看详细解题过程; 分值【10.0





0.2810s