Text 4

　　In a rare unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access to government.

　　The high court’s decision said the judge in Mr. McDonnell’s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his “official acts,” or the former governor’s decisions on “specific” and “unsettled” issues related to his duties.

　　Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption, the justices found.

　　The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is “distasteful” and “nasty.” But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an “official act.”

　　The court’s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal. Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution of bribery. “The basic compact underlying representative government,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”

　　But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift. This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.

　　Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption. But it is not always corruption. Rather officials must avoid double standards, or different types of access for average people and the wealthy. If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society – that all are equal in treatment by government- is undermined. Good government rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual.

　　The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.

　　36. The underlined sentence(Para.1) most probably shows that the court

　　[A] avoided defining the extent of McDonnell’s duties.

　　[B] made no compromise in convicting McDonnell.

　　[C] was contemptuous of McDonnell’s conduct.

　　[D] refused to comment on McDonnell’s ethics.

　　37. According to Paragraph 4, an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves

　　[A] concrete returns for gift-givers.

　　[B] sizable gains in the form of gifts.

　　[C] leaking secrets intentionally.

　　[D] breaking contracts officially.

　　38. The court’s ruling is d on the assumption that public officials are

　　[A] allowed to focus on the concerns of their supporters.

　　[B] qualified to deal independently with bureaucratic issues.

　　[C] justified in addressing the needs of their constituents.

　　[D] exempt from conviction on the charge of favoritism.

　　39. Well-enforced laws in government transparency are needed to

　　[A] awaken the conscience of officials.

　　[B] guarantee fair play in official access.

　　[C] allow for certain kinds of lobbying.

　　[D] inspire hopes in average people.

　　40. The author’s attitude toward the court’s ruling is

　　[A] sarcastic.

　　[B] tolerant.

　　[C] skeptical.

　　[D] supportive.

　　答案：36-40 CBABD

　　36. 答案【C】was contemptuous of McDonnell’s conduct.

　　解析：根据题干中的关键词The underlined sentence (para. 1)，可以快速的回到原文精确定位到第一段的划线句子，But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seekingaccess to government. 联系文章第一句话，虽然最高法院没有判定Robert McDonnell受贿罪，但是 holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct, 即，在道德上却对他的行为嗤之以鼻。由此可以锁定C选项中的 was contemptuous of 法院其实非常轻视Robert McDonnell的行为。文章的D选项中出现 ethics，原文中相同的词，可能会混淆考生的思维，但是，此句话说的是拒绝从道德的标准评论Robert McDonnell的行为。

　　37. 答案【B】sizable gains in the form of gifts.

　　解析：根据题干中给出的信息，可知这一题是对文章第四段理解，由第四段推理出正确答案。从第四段But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an “official act.”可以知道，对腐败的定义是，只有受贿者给予了行贿者实际的好处，例如 a contract or regulation, 如果提供的不是具体的好处，仅仅只是：arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event, 那么这种行为就不是受贿。由此可以得出答案为A.

　　38. 答案【A】allowed to focus on the concerns of their supporters.

　　解析：根据题干中的关键词The court’s ruling is don the assumption可以锁定文章的第五段，“The basic compact underlying representative government,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court, “assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns.”可以知道，法院的裁定是建立听取其选民的意见，按照他们的利益行事。所以原文中的constituents对应A选项的 supporters，支持者。所以答案选择A

　　39. 答案【B】guarantee fair play in official access.

　　解析：根据题干中的关键词Well-enforced laws in government transparency可以锁定文章的第六段This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, and information about each elected leader’s source of wealth.但是从这句话中找不到所需的信息，从this type of可以知道这句话与前面的句子联系紧密，因而可以追溯到这一段的第一句话，But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. 执法力度需要加强市民及其当选代表，而不是法院获得接近政府的平等的机会。equality与B选项的fair play相对应，因此选B.

　　40. 答案【D】supportive.

　　解析：本题考察的是态度题，从文中最后一句话: The court’s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.可以看出作者认为法院的裁定是进步的： a step forward，，因此可以看出作者对此的态度是supportive. sarcastic: 尖酸的，挖苦的;tolerant：宽容的，容忍的;skeptical：怀疑的。