2017年考研英语一新题型真题（文字版）

　　　Text 4

　　In a rare unanimousruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of aformer Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding itsnose at the ethics of his conduct, which included accepting gifts such as aRolex watch and a Ferrari Automobile from a company seeking access togovernment.

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

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

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

　　The court’s ruling islegally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal. Electedleaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problemswithout fear of prosecution of bribery. “The basic compact underlyingrepresentative government,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the court,“assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act ontheir concerns.”

　　But the rulingreinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not thecourts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not beallowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetingssimply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or apersonal gift. This type of integrity requires will-enforced laws in governmenttransparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, andinformation about each elected leader’s source of wealth.

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

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

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

　　[A] avoided definingthe extent of McDonnell’s duties.

　　[B] made no compromisein convicting McDonnell.

　　[C] was contemptuousof McDonnell’s conduct.

　　[D] refused to commenton McDonnell’s ethics.

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

　　[A] concrete returnsfor gift-givers.

　　[B] sizable gains inthe form of gifts.

　　[C] leaking secretsintentionally.

　　[D] breaking contractsofficially.

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

　　[A] allowed to focuson the concerns of their supporters.

　　[B] qualified to dealindependently with bureaucratic issues.

　　[C] justified inaddressing the needs of their constituents.

　　[D] exempt fromconviction on the charge of favoritism.

　　39. Well-enforced lawsin government transparency are needed to

　　[A] awaken theconscience of officials.

　　[B] guarantee fairplay in official access.

　　[C] allow for certainkinds of lobbying.

　　[D] inspire hopes in averagepeople.

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

　　[A] sarcastic.

　　[B] tolerant.

　　[C] skeptical.

　　[D] supportive.