就要发 厦门 三战零零

shingokick

月读：月读遇到了两只狗。。
一个是广告语速的还有一个是博物馆的。。狗狗都挺详细了
还有一个新题是讲金融的量化的
P1：可以通过量化来计算公司的价值 但是 有些方面如无形的东西没办法量化 提到了社会的道德还是社会责任什么的对公司价值很有帮助
P2：很多人都去买mutual fund 因为他们的社会责任感好之类的
P3：第三段记不太清楚了 待回忆
P4：有些人想要把这种无形的也量化 但是不太可行 下面是解释

另一个新题是water right的。。基本没看懂。。有讲到Hispanic law什么的。。
大意是一个法之前是让water right 分享
第二段又说后来限制于一些人使用了 看不是很懂

鱼发我记得不多。。遇到2个GWD原题。。一个寂静已经有了  另一个是responding to。。。，scientists。。。。comet。。 也是GWD原题 大家应该能想起来

罗技：基本忘了= = 实在不好意思

输血：遇到了lane的火车的那题。。直接晕菜。。没看懂。。
这次好像蛮多题目很长的。。大家注意下。。


感谢鸡血群的各位。。踏雪！！！！。。教主。。FM。。战役。。beat。。叮当。。湿父。。urs。。SAMA。。马甲。。影帝。。宇哥。。Stephanie。。忍冬。。小教徒。。托。。dom。。蜀黍。。懒懒。。风扇。。柠檬。。11。。。。

感谢CD整理寂静的同志们~~泪奔
咩咩咩咩咩咩咩咩咩咩！

寂静补充：鱼发的原题是
Responding to the public’s fascination with-and sometimes undue alarm over possible threats from asteroids, a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may collide with Earth.

A. a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may

B. a scale that astronomers have developed rates how likely it is for a particular asteroid or comet to

C. astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to
D. astronomers have developed a scale for rating the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will

E. astronomers have developed a scale that rates the likelihood of a particular asteroid or comet that may.




月度的水权不是og原题 非常确定 跟狗里的那个水权有点像

windypig123

。。。。。。。。。。你再咩咩咩咩咩的  。。。。。小心我T你
anyway
还是恭喜你拉

clumsyorange

楼主，说water right的是不是这篇文章啊？OG12里面也有一篇长阅读是一样的，不过这里贴过来的题目问题跟OG不一样，麻烦LZ好好确认一下：
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters fl owing through
or adjacent to the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did
not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the
federal government, when it created the reservation,
intended to deal fairly with American Indians by
reserving for them the waters without which their
lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts can fi nd federal rights
to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land
in question lies within an enclave under exclusive
federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally
withdrawn from federal public lands—i.e., withdrawn
from the stock of federal lands available for private
use under federal land use laws—and set aside or
reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the
government intended to reserve water as well as land
when establishing the reservation.
Some American Indian tribes have also established
water rights through the courts based on their
traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to
the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For
example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when
the United States acquired sovereignty over New
Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became
part of the United States, the pueblo lands never
formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in
any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has
ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public
lands as American Indian reservations. This fact,
however, has not barred application of the Winters
doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian
reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
defi nition, and the pueblos have always been treated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
in which any type of federal reservation is created
does not affect the application to it of the Winters
doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of
Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens’ water
rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be
considered to have become reservations.

Q25:

The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?

A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands
B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands
D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine
E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q26:

The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?

A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.
B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.
C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.
E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q27:

According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?

A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.
B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.
C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.
D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.
E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q28:

The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations
B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes
C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American
Indian tribes
D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians
E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations


做这种题目得记住，肯定不会采用对少数民族或者女人不好的文章的。

所以看到这种文章不要想作者是反对对这些人有利的政策的。

1 winter acknowledged the water rights of indian, not officially expressed, but holding it should be an attached right with the treaty.
2 federal gov can establish the water rights for indian in 3 situation
a. land with water is in a special enclaveing area.(like Shenzhen in China).
b. land with water had been reserved, which can not be bought in the market.(like National park).
3 Rio established its water rights not by treaty, by enclaving area, nor by reserved land. These 3 situations that have been talked above, as I listed. So, it should have no water rights. However, it have, because traditional use of Indian.
4 Arizona law finnaly acknowledged the traditional use of Indian should be another condition in which Indian tribes can established the water rights. The right has been actually established before 1848,the Rio.
The structure is simple.
Answer is A C D B.
In 26, in A, "the citizen" was never mentioned. in B, the rio has water rights before 1848.
in D, reservation other than Indian was not mentioned. in E, "explicitly" was never mentioned as a need prerequisites to have water rights.
In 28,in D, the earliest dates were never really mentioned in the article. should be a disturbance option.

clumsyorange

这是一篇OG12上的长阅读，CD上以前还曾好好讨论过：
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_RC/thread-420556-1-1.html**********************************************************

为了理解方便，这里贴出来之前一个大N 的中文/ 英文分析, 相信之后大家都应该就了然于胸拉.:

1908年高院裁定FortBerthold保留地的印第安人的对于流经或其附近水源的用水权，而其依据试当初建立保留的的treaty。虽然这个treaty上没有清楚地写明用水权，高院认定当初政府在设立保留地的时候就有意保障印第安人的用水权，否则保留地将因为无水可用而变得荒芜。后来的决定，引用了W这个法案的判定，设定了政府为一些特定的目的留出一些水资源的条件：（1）这些地不在政府的直接管辖范围之内（保留地的同义词）；（2）这些土地从政府的公共用地中单列出来用以其他的特殊目的；（3）政府在设立保留地时也有意保留用水权的意图。

一些印第安部落通过法院的判决享用了用水权，而他们的依据是历史遗留及在美国成立之前他们就享有用水权。RG部落就是这样的一个例子，在1848年新墨西哥成为美国的一部分之前，RG部落就生活在这里。尽管那个时候新墨西哥成为美国的一部分，但是RG的这片土地却从来没有成为过联邦政府的公共用地（暗示不符合上述三种情况的第一种），也没有任何treaty, executive order使得将RG的这片土地设立为保留地。然而这些事实并不影响W条例在RG上的适用性。事实上什么组成保留地只是一个实际操作问题，而不是法律定义的问题，因为RG的这片土地一向被政府视作保留地。这个方式在1963年Arizona VS California的案例中得以印证，在该案例中高院表示保留地是通过何种方式建立起来的并不影响W对它的适用性。因此，从1848年起，即RG被认为是保留地的那一年开始，RG部落的人都享有优先用水权。
简化:
1908年的一个case引发了之后关于什么样的条件下保留地拥有优先用水权的判定。

但是呢，有一些印第安人部落的情况却不符合这样几个标准（至少文章只提了不符合1，2两种），但是他们一样享有优先用水权，因为他们从一开始就被等同于保留地看待，而这样的一种认识在1963年的一个case中又得以印证。
==================================================
1 winter acknowledged the water rights of indian, not officially expressed, but holding it should be an attached right with the treaty.

2 federal gov can establish the water rights for indian in 3 situation

a. land with water is in a special enclaveing area.(like Shenzhen in China).

b. land with water had been reserved, which can not be bought in the market.(like National park).

3 Rio established its water rights not by treaty, by enclaving area, nor by reserved land. These 3 situations that have been talked above, as I listed. So, it should have no water rights. However, it have, because traditional use of Indian.

4 Arizona law finnaly acknowledged the traditional use of Indian should be another condition in which Indian tribes can established the water rights. The right has been actually established before 1848,the Rio.





PS：再对比一下OG12原题里面的问题

57. According to the passage, which of the following was
true of the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation?
(A) It was challenged in the Supreme Court a
number of times.
(B) It was rescinded by the federal government, an
action that gave rise to the Winters case.
(C) It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the
land’s resources.
(D) It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by
the reservation’s inhabitants.
(E) It was modifi ed by the Supreme Court in Arizona
v. California.


58. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in
lines 10–20 were the only criteria for establishing a
reservation’s water rights, which of the following would
be true?
(A) The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort
Belknap Indian Reservation would not take
precedence over those of other citizens.
(B) Reservations established before 1848 would be
judged to have no water rights.
(C) There would be no legal basis for the water
rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.
(D) Reservations other than American Indian
reservations could not be created with reserved
water rights.
(E) Treaties establishing reservations would have to
mention water rights explicitly in order to
reserve water for a particular purpose.

59. Which of the following most accurately summarizes
the relationship between Arizona v. California in lines
38–42, and the criteria citing the Winters doctrine in
lines 10–20?
(A) Arizona v. California abolishes these criteria and
establishes a competing set of criteria for
applying the Winters doctrine.
(B) Arizona v. California establishes that the Winters
doctrine applies to a broader range of situations
than those defi ned by these criteria.
(C) Arizona v. California represents the sole example
of an exception to the criteria as they were set
forth in the Winters doctrine.
(D) Arizona v. California does not refer to the Winters
doctrine to justify water rights, whereas these
criteria do rely on the Winters doctrine.
(E) Arizona v. California applies the criteria derived
from the Winters doctrine only to federal lands
other than American Indian reservations.


60. The “pragmatic approach” mentioned in lines 37–38
of the passage is best defi ned as one that
(A) grants recognition to reservations that were
never formally established but that have
traditionally been treated as such
(B) determines the water rights of all citizens in a
particular region by examining the actual history
of water usage in that region
(C) gives federal courts the right to reserve water
along with land even when it is clear that the
government originally intended to reserve only
the land
(D) bases the decision to recognize the legal rights
of a group on the practical effect such a
recognition is likely to have on other citizens
(E) dictates that courts ignore precedents set by
such cases as Winters v. United States in
deciding what water rights belong to reserved
land

61. The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos
were never formally withdrawn from public lands
primarily in order to do which of the following?
(A) Suggest why it might have been argued that the
Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo
lands
(B) Imply that the United States never really
acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands
(C) Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be
considered part of federal public lands
(D) Support the argument that the water rights of
citizens other than American Indians are limited
by the Winters doctrine
(E) Suggest that federal courts cannot claim
jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional
diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians


62. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) trace the development of laws establishing
American Indian reservations
(B) explain the legal bases for the water rights of
American Indian tribes
(C) question the legal criteria often used to
determine the water rights of American Indian
tribes
(D) discuss evidence establishing the earliest date
at which the federal government recognized the
water rights of American Indians
(E) point out a legal distinction between different
types of American Indian reservations


63. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens
other than American Indians to the use of water
fl owing into the Rio Grande pueblos are
(A) guaranteed by the precedent set in Arizona v.
California
(B) abolished by the Winters doctrine
(C) deferred to the Pueblo Indians whenever treaties
explicitly require this
(D) guaranteed by federal land-use laws
(E) limited by the prior claims of the Pueblo Indians

蒙面小兔

这题不是OG-12的一篇文章么？？？？

leanncx

看到厦门二字灰常激动～作为厦门人的我必须出来祝贺你一下。。希望21号武汉二战能好运～！

clumsyorange

我回复的第二个回帖是OG12的，第一个回帖不是哦~~~第一个回帖里面才是要LZ确认的文章，两篇问题不一样的~~~

这题不是OG-12的一篇文章么？？？？

-- by 会员 蒙面小兔 (2010/9/18 15:38:28)

蒙面小兔

我回复的第二个回帖是OG12的，第一个回帖不是哦~~~第一个回帖里面才是要LZ确认的文章，两篇问题不一样的~~~

这题不是OG-12的一篇文章么？？？？

-- by 会员 蒙面小兔 (2010/9/18 15:38:28)

-- by 会员 clumsyorange (2010/9/18 15:47:46)

题目好些还是一样的，只是顺序不一样？？？是这个意思么？

clumsyorange

嗯，跟OG的问法相比有变化~  不过大体上貌似也差不多，明天就要考了，看得没有MM仔细。。。。sign。。。。

我回复的第二个回帖是OG12的，第一个回帖不是哦~~~第一个回帖里面才是要LZ确认的文章，两篇问题不一样的~~~

这题不是OG-12的一篇文章么？？？？

-- by 会员 蒙面小兔 (2010/9/18 15:38:28)

-- by 会员 clumsyorange (2010/9/18 15:47:46)

题目好些还是一样的，只是顺序不一样？？？是这个意思么？

-- by 会员 蒙面小兔 (2010/9/18 15:56:35)

nowwsy

这个是鸡血群里的点号？
anyway !cong!