ARTICLE · 1042282
2013 年英语一 · Text 4 真题精讲
发布时间：2026-09-20 10:13:13 最近访问：2026-09-20 10:13:13
2013 年英语一 · Text 4 真题精讲
阅读理解逐题精讲 · 找定位词 → 找定位句 → 精读定位句 → 匹配选项| 本文选自2012年《The Wall Street Journal》，讨论美国最高法院对亚利桑那州（Arizona）移民法的裁决。核心议题是联邦政府与州政府之间的权力分配。 |
| 文章首先给出裁决结果（5:3推翻部分条款＝小胜；8:0否决行政分支越权＝大败），然后逐层展开：推翻三条条款的宪法依据、保留一条条款的理由、少数派反对意见，最后批评白宫试图将"执法优先级"凌驾于法律之上。作者立场明确——支持大法官限制行政分支的权力扩张。 |
| 第1段 · 概述5:3推翻部分Arizona移民法（行政分支小胜） ／ 8:0否决行政分支打破权力平衡的企图（大败） |
|
| 第2-3段 · 推翻三条条款及理由联邦独有归化权，联邦法优于州法 → 联邦已"occupied the field"，Arizona侵犯联邦特权 |
|
| 第4段 · 保留一条条款Arizona警察可核查移民身份 → 国会一直设想联邦-州联合执法，鼓励信息共享与合作 |
|
| 第5段 · 反对意见Alito & Thomas：同意宪法逻辑，不同意具体条款冲突判断 ／ Scalia：更强硬地捍卫州特权，追溯至Alien and Sedition Acts |
|
| 第6-7段 · 8:0反对白宫白宫声称可废除任何不同意的州法 → 作者认为这是"惊人的越权主张" → 所有大法官一致否决 |
|
| Three provisions of Arizona's plan were overturned because they ______. |
| [A] deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers[B] disturbed the power balance between different states[C] overstepped the authority of federal immigration law[D] contradicted both the federal and state policies |
|
| 定位词：Three provisions（三条条款）、overturned（推翻）、because（原因） |
|
| 第3段②：On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately "occupied the field" and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers. |
|
| 核心拆解："occupied the field"＝联邦已"占领该领域"（已在此行使权力）"intruded on the federal's privileged powers"＝Arizona侵犯了联邦的特权逻辑链：国会已占领移民法领域 → Arizona的条款侵入联邦特权 → 三条条款被推翻补充佐证（第2段②）：Washington alone has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" and that federal laws precede state laws.（联邦独有归化权，联邦法优先于州法） |
| overstepped the authority of federal immigration law【正确】"overstepped"＝intruded on（侵犯/越界）；"authority of federal immigration law"＝federal's privileged powers（联邦特权）。完美同义替换。 |
| deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers【排除】偷换概念：原文"federal's privileged powers"（联邦特权）→ 选项"federal police of Constitutional powers"（联邦警察的宪法权力）。联邦政府特权 ≠ 联邦警察的宪法权力。 |
| disturbed the power balance between different states【排除】偷换对象：原文第1段②说的是"balance of power between the federal government and the states"（联邦与州之间），选项偷换成"between different states"（不同州之间）。 |
| contradicted both the federal and state policies【排除】偷换概念：第2段③说Arizona的政策"ran parallel to the existing federal ones"（与联邦政策平行/一致），选项说"contradicted"（矛盾）。平行 ≠ 矛盾。 |
|
| On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4? |
| [A] Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information.[B] States' independence from federal immigration law.[C] States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement.[D] Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement. |
|
| 定位词：Justices agree（大法官一致同意）、Paragraph 4（定位段落） |
|
| 第4段①：However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement.第4段②：That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues. |
|
| 核心拆解：①大法官们一致同意：Arizona警察被允许核查（verify）移民身份②原因：国会一直设想联邦-州联合执法（joint enforcement），并鼓励州官员分享信息、与联邦同事合作逻辑链：大法官同意州警察参与核查 → 国会鼓励联邦-州联合执法 → 州在移民执法中有合法角色 |
| States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement【正确】"legitimate role"＝allowed to verify（被允许核查＝合法角色）；"immigration enforcement"原文原词。完美同义替换。 |
| Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information【排除】反向干扰：原文说"share information"（分享信息），选项说"withhold"（隐瞒）。完全相反。 |
| States' independence from federal immigration law【排除】反向干扰：原文说"joint federal-state"（联合执法），选项说"independence from"（独立于）。联合 ≠ 独立。 |
| Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement【排除】偷换概念：原文说Congress"envisioned"（设想）和"encourages"（鼓励），选项说"intervention"（干预）。设想/鼓励 ≠ 干预。 |
|
| It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts ______. |
| [A] violated the Constitution[B] undermined the states' interests[C] supported the federal statute[D] stood in favor of the states |
|
| 定位词：Alien and Sedition Acts（专有名词，直接定位）、Paragraph 5、inferred（推断题） |
|
| 第5段②：The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privilegesgoing back to the Alien and Sedition Acts. |
|
| 核心拆解："robust defense of state privileges"＝为州的特权做强有力的辩护"going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts"＝追溯到《外籍人与煽动叛乱法》推断逻辑链：Scalia为"州特权"辩护 → 他追溯到Alien and Sedition Acts → 说明该法案的内容支持州的特权关键：用某法案来捍卫州特权，意味着该法案本身站在州这一边。 |
| stood in favor of the states【正确】"stood in favor of the states"＝defense of state privileges（捍卫州特权）。Scalia用该法案来支持州特权，说明该法案支持州的利益。正确推断。 |
| violated the Constitution【排除】无中生有：Scalia用它来辩护自己的立场，不可能引用违宪的法案来支持论点。原文未提及违宪。 |
| undermined the states' interests【排除】反向干扰：原文说Scalia用它来"defense of state privileges"（捍卫州特权），选项说"undermined"（损害）。捍卫 ≠ 损害。 |
| supported the federal statute【排除】偷换对象：原文说Scalia用它来支持"state privileges"（州特权），选项偷换成"federal statute"（联邦法令）。把"州"换成了"联邦"。 |
|
| The White House claims that its power of enforcement ______. |
| [A] outweighs that held by the states[B] is dependent on the states' support[C] is established by federal statutes[D] rarely goes against state laws |
|
| 定位词：White House claims（白宫声称）、power of enforcement（执法权） |
|
| 第6段②：The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter.第6段③：In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with. |
|
| 核心拆解：②白宫认为：即使州法严格遵守联邦法令（"to the letter"＝字字照办），只要与白宫的"执法优先级"冲突，就有问题③实际效果：白宫声称可以废除任何它不同意的合法州法逻辑链：白宫的执法权 ＞ 州法 → 白宫可以单方面废除州法 → 白宫的执法权凌驾于州之上关键转折：②中"even if...complied with federal statutes to the letter"——即使州法完全符合联邦法令，白宫仍认为可以干预。说明白宫的权力依据不是法令本身，而是其自定的"执法优先级"。 |
| outweighs that held by the states【正确】"outweighs"＝could invalidate（可以废除）；白宫可以废除任何不同意的州法＝白宫执法权大于州。正确概括。 |
| is dependent on the states' support【排除】无中生有：原文未提及白宫执法权"依赖"州的支持。白宫恰恰是要压过州，不是依赖州。 |
| is established by federal statutes【排除】偷换概念：原文说白宫权力基于"enforcement priorities"（执法优先级），选项说"established by federal statutes"（由联邦法令确立）。②明确说"even if...complied with federal statutes"——即使符合法令也不行，说明权力依据不是法令。 |
| rarely goes against state laws【排除】反向干扰：原文说白宫可以废除"any state law it disagrees with"（任何不同意的州法），选项说"rarely goes against"（很少违背）。完全相反。 |
|
| What can be learned from the last paragraph? |
| [A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.[B] Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.[D] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues. |
|
| 定位词：last paragraph（最后一段）、what can be learned（推断/推论题） |
|
| 第7段④：The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either.第7段⑤：Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim. |
|
| 核心拆解：④行政分支声称：因为自己不想执行国会的移民法令，就不允许任何州执行⑤所有大法官都"rightly"（合理地）否决了这一"remarkable claim"（惊人的主张）逻辑链：行政分支试图扩大权力 → 声称可以阻止所有州执行国会法令 → 大法官一致否决 → 大法官意在限制行政分支的权力关键词解读："rightly"＝作者赞同大法官的否决（表明立场）"remarkable claim"＝惊人的主张（贬义，说明行政分支越权）"check"在此不是"检查"，而是"制衡、限制"之意 |
| Justices intended to check the power of the Administration【正确】"check the power"＝rejected this remarkable claim（否决越权主张）；行政分支声称越权 → 大法官一致否决＝大法官意在制衡行政分支权力。"check"＝制衡、限制。 |
| Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress【排除】过度推断：原文说国会有权阻止州核查移民身份但"never did so"（从未这样做），不能推出移民问题"usually decided by Congress"（通常由国会决定）。 |
| Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress【排除】无中生有：原文未提及大法官想加强与国会的"协调"（coordination）。最后一段讲的是大法官否决行政分支，与国会协调无关。 |
| The Administration is dominant over immigration issues【排除】反向干扰：原文说所有大法官否决了行政分支的主张＝行政分支在移民问题上并非主导。选项说"dominant"（主导），与原文相反。 |
| 本题错误选项三大陷阱： |
| 偷换概念：federal's privileged powers → federal police's Constitutional powers；enforcement priorities → federal statutes；state privileges → federal statute。抓住原文核心词，逐词比对。 |
| 反向干扰：share information → withhold；joint → independence；defense of → undermined；could invalidate → rarely goes against。看到反义词直接排除。 |
| 无中生有：violated the Constitution、dependent on states' support、coordination with Congress。原文未提及的信息不选。 |
本文核心考点：联邦与州的权力分配、行政分支的权力边界阅读时抓住"权力"这一关键词，理清各方立场与关系