ChaseDream
标题: 揽瓜阁做题小分队 第48天 美国隔离法案 [打印本页]
作者: 小白斩鸡 时间: 2021-5-17 16:21
标题: 揽瓜阁做题小分队 第48天 美国隔离法案
请大家在本帖回复:
1. 文章大概结构
2. 自己写的答案
解析+文章翻译明晚微信群里公布
报名活动,加微信号killgmat
Some of the legal remedies that the United States Supreme Court’s 1955 Brown II decision prescribed to eliminate racially segregated education were faulty because they failed to take into account important findings of a sociological study on community experiences in school desegregation. First, the Court assigned primary responsibility for school desegregation to local school authorities and to U.S. district courts because it believed that these local entities could best change local regulations and thereby accomplish school desegregation. But the study had found that successful desegregation could occur in places where regulations permitted other local institutions to remain segregated. Second, the Court instructed school authorities to admit racial minorities to public schools as soon as practicable, yet it also said that school authorities would be viewed as making good faith efforts if they proceeded “with all deliberate speed,” rather than acting immediately. But the study had found that unclear policies create confusion and facilitate resistance, whereas clear-cut policies administered with resolution and decisiveness early in the process are of great importance in accomplishing desegregation with a minimum of difficulty. Sadly, as a result of such flaws in the Court’s remedies, the opportunity to attend integrated schools was denied to many minority students for up to a decade after the original Supreme Court decision.
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. describe the effects of a Supreme Court decision on school desegregation
B. trace the origins of a Supreme Court decision on school desegregation
C. explain why a Supreme Court decision overlooked certain research findings
D. compare different legal remedies for school segregation
E. give reasons for the limited success of a Supreme Court decision on school desegregation
2.The author of the passage mentions the findings of a particular sociological study primarily in order to establish which of the following?
A. Whether school authorities made good faith efforts to desegregate their schools
B. What kinds of difficulties school authorities faced in desegregating their schools
C. What role local school authorities and U.S. district courts could have played in desegregating schools
D. How school desegregation could have been implemented more effectively
E. How much resistance there was to the Supreme Court’s school desegregation decision
3.The author of the passage suggests that the Supreme Court’s instruction to school authorities to use “all deliberate speed” had which of the following consequences?
A. Schools were desegregated as soon as was practicable.
B. School desegregation was accompanied by a certain amount of confusion.
C. School desegregation proceeded more quickly than the desegregation of other local institutions.
D. School authorities took immediate steps to begin the desegregation process.
E. School authorities made good faith efforts to desegregate their schools.
参考答案:
作者: zhangmenghan 时间: 2021-5-17 17:22
ECB
作者: 速水愛媛 时间: 2021-5-17 20:33
EC B
作者: 再战请勿拦 时间: 2021-5-17 22:57
edb
作者: cacamama 时间: 2021-5-18 03:51
EBB.
作者: pluto1 时间: 2021-5-18 09:23
EDA
作者: 小学生Pon 时间: 2021-5-18 10:39
The implementation could not done successfully due to neglect of study findings.
Point1: assumption of quick implementation fails
Point2: the spread of implementation not effectively due to authorities
ECB
作者: meo1r 时间: 2021-5-18 14:51
CBB
作者: Syvlia 时间: 2021-5-18 18:59
Mark一下!
作者: LouisTan 时间: 2021-5-18 21:35
EDE
作者: Shaucan 时间: 2021-5-18 23:19
EEB
作者: gtertaisha 时间: 2021-5-19 07:13
ccb
作者: miemie_yang 时间: 2021-5-19 11:08
B C E
作者: famerica 时间: 2021-5-21 12:17
1. 文章大概结构
高等法院1955年的一些法案本意是消除教育上的种族隔离,但是最近的研究表明,这一法案少考虑了一些因素:第一,法案主要委派当地教育机构和地方法院来执行,但是事实上其他机构保持隔离的地方执行的也很好(?此处逻辑没看懂);第二,法案条文太模糊,执行起来造成了混乱。所以这一法案颁布后,有很长一段时间效果不好。
2. 答案
edb
作者: Ivory2020 时间: 2021-5-21 18:03
同意!
作者: ccccherry 时间: 2021-5-21 22:37
BDE
作者: liangabc 时间: 2021-5-21 23:49
同意!
作者: 2021加油冲 时间: 2021-5-22 00:31
EBE
作者: dlwlrma 时间: 2021-5-23 10:00
ecb
作者: 英语爱我我爱英语 时间: 2021-5-25 10:54
EDB
作者: 飞跃重洋2017 时间: 2021-5-26 13:38
EDB
作者: irisville 时间: 2021-5-27 16:47
ebb
作者: SSSuper_Olivia 时间: 2021-5-27 18:02
EBB
作者: yutingw 时间: 2021-5-31 15:56
ECB
作者: _Salaxy_ 时间: 2021-6-7 16:07
EDB
作者: Miahegogogo 时间: 2021-6-7 20:39
EDB
作者认为美国1955 Brown II修正案有一些错误的地方,没有将一个学校去种族隔离的社会实验结果考虑进去,第一是让local school authority和district court完全掌管去种族隔离的权力,尤其是社会实验表明让一些当地的机构保持种族隔离会使得学校的去种族隔离更快更有效;第二是让地方有自治权来决定什么时候实行去种族隔离政策而不是立即执行,这个方法造成了confusion, 政策的缺陷使得整整一代少数族裔不能进入融合的学校。
作者: A1exi 时间: 2021-6-8 17:03
ede
作者: sjj加油 时间: 2021-6-12 20:58
edb
作者首先表明自己的态度有些法规是不合理的。因为忽略了某些重要的社会学方面的发现,举例两点。
最后再次强调遗憾的是,这样的法规漏洞会耽误很多少数种族的学生上学
作者: 大月亮cyn 时间: 2021-11-4 13:41
Day48 EDB
作者: HelloWorld~ 时间: 2021-11-4 17:09
Some of the legal remedies of Brown II decision were faulty
Reason:1, local regulations still permitted some other local institutions to remain segregated. 2, Policies ambiguous create confusion and facilitate resistance
Result: many minority students can not attend integrated schools
1,E mian idea
2,D no sure, i feel none of them is right, since the study establish that some of the legal remedies of Brown II decision were faulty.
3,B,
,,,“with all deliberate speed,” rather than acting immediately. But the study had found that unclear policies create confusion and facilitate resistance,,,
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |