- UID
- 711392
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-1-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
正分析这篇文章，发现这个讲解很不错，给大家分享一下~
来源：http://news.iciba.com/study/xdf4/1552679.shtml
GMAT阅读“印第安水权”文章深度分析
2012-06-27 14:18 来源：
点击：63次
文/ 北京新东方学校 北美部GMAT项目组 李昊 周帆
阅读建议：
1) 文章可见于第13版OG 390页 或 第12版OG第12篇。
2) 建议读者先按自己的节奏阅读文章并做完题目，再看文章分析及题目讲解。
文章及题目：
(Line) In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through through
or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
(5) 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
preserving for them the waters without which their
(10) lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts can find 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
(15) withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn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
(20) 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
(25) 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
(30) 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ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public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
(35) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
definition, 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
(40) 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
(45) considered to have become reservations.
#p#副标题#e#
56. 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 modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
57. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 13–20 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 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.
58. 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 defined 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.
59. The “pragmatic approach” mentioned in lines 37-38 of the passage is best defined 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 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
60. 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
61. 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
62. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing 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
#p#副标题#e#
1. 背景知识补充：
1) 美国法律体系属于海洋法系，即基于先前类似案件的判决结果来对每一案件进行判决。美国法律有联邦法和州法两级，当两者冲突时，宪法规定联邦具有更高效力。
2) 在美国，土地可以私有，也可以归联邦政府公有(比如有特殊用途的土地，包括自然保护区、印第安保留地等)。土地使用权与土地上水域的使用权(以下简称水权)是两种不同的权利，这篇文章就是探讨了在特定条件下，联邦政府收回水域使用权的法律基础。
3) 印第安保留地 (Indian Reservation)：是美国为了表示对印第安文化传统的尊重而设立的类似“自治区”性质的特别地区，在保留地内，印第安人高度自治，有独立于州政府和州法律之外的自治政府和法律体系。文中提到的新墨西哥州共有22个印第安人保留地。
#p#副标题#e#
2. 文章初读(只读各段首句)：
第一段首句：
In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation.
翻译：最高法院在 1908 年 Winters v. United States 案件审理中援引保留地建立的协议条款，判决 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 的印第安人拥有流经、毗邻该地域的水域使用权。
评：给出了文章的大背景，提到了“保留地建立协议”及“保留区当地水权使用归印第安人所有”两个贯穿全文的概念，并提出两者关系是：最高法院依据“保留地建立协议”来判决“保留区当地水权使用归印第安人所有”。
第二段首句：
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.
翻译：一些印第安部落还通过法院确立了自己的水权，法院判定的理由是印第安人(与其他美国人)的传统差异以及当地印第安人在美国联邦政府取得主权之前就一直使用水域的既成事实。
评：初读该句，应该注意把握句子里对理解文章最有用的一个词：also。既然是also，那么上文必然提到过获得水权的其他方式。果然，首段首句说的就是印第安人获得水权的第一种方式：最高法院通过援引“保留地建立协议”来判决“保留区当地水权使用归印第安人所有”。所以，读到这里，基本可以判断，两段之间应该是平行结构，分别叙述印第安人获得保留地水权的两种方式。
#p#副标题#e#
3. 文章精读(精读各句，把握逻辑关系)
第一段：(标记重要逻辑关系词)
(Line) In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme
Court held that the right to use waters flowing through through
or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
was reserved to American Indians by the treaty
(5) 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
preserving for them the waters without which their
(10) lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing
Winters, established that courts can find 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
(15) 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
(20) when establishing the reservation.
翻译：最高法院在 1908 年 Winters v. United States 案件审理中援引保留地建立的协议条款，判决 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 的印第安人拥有流经、毗邻该地域的水域使用权。尽管协议本身未提及水权，最高法院认为，联邦政府在建立居留区时，本意是为了保护印第安人土地使用权。如果不赋予印第安人水权，则土地无法使用。之后的其它决议引用 Winters 案的判决结果，认定法院在下列三种条件同时满足的情况下，联邦可以为特定目的对征用的水域拥有水权(联邦有了某地的水权才能把水权赋予给当地印第安人)：1) 该地域属于联邦具有排他司法管辖权(EFJ)的飞地; 2) 该地域之前曾作为联邦公共用地被抽调它用(即基于联邦土地使用法抽调该地用作私人用途)，之后被闲置或保留; 3)各种情况显示，政府在建立该保护区时的意图是同时保护水域和土地。
读完第一段后，可做如下笔记，整理各句大意及句间关系：
●SP Court (1908, W): water right of FBIR à Indians, based on Treaty
(Although Treaty not mention water right, IR means reserve water, no wateràland useless)
● Later decisions (based on 1908 W): federal water right if:
1) Enclave & EFJ
2) Set aside or reserved after withdrawal
3) Reserve water & land when establishing
(注：两●之间是时间先后关系或后者援引前者的关系)
#p#副标题#e#
第二段：(标记重要逻辑关系词)
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
(25) 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
(30) 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
(35) reservation is a question of practice, not of legal
definition, and the pueblos have always been treated
as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic
approachis buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963),
wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner
(40) 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
(45) considered to have become reservations.
翻译：一些印第安部落还通过法院确立了水权，法院判定的理由是印第安人(与其他美国人)的传统差异以及当地印第安人在美国联邦政府取得主权之前就一直使用水域的既成事实。比如，Rio Grande 印第安村在美国于1848 年取得新墨西哥主权之前就已经存在。尽管之后村子成为美国的一部分，但村子的土地从来不是联邦公共用地;由始至终，从没有任何协议或者行政指令指示把村子指定为或从公共用地中抽调出来作为印第安保留区。但是，这个事实也无法阻止 Winters 原则的生效。应由历史实践，而非法律定义，来决定该地是否印第安保留地，而印第安小村们也一直被美国当作保留地。这种务实的做法被 Arizona v. California (1963)案判决结果所支持。高等法院通过此案指示，保留地建立的方式并不影响 Winters 原则的实施。因此，自1848年起，当地印第安村民的水权优先级高于其他公民的水权，而村子也应该被认定从该年起成为保留区。
读完第二段后，可做如下笔记，整理各句大意及句间关系：
●Indians: also get water right because use of water earlier than US sovereignty
●eg.: RGP exist before 1848 (US sovereignty)
Although part of US, never designated as IR
However, Winters works.
(IR: practice > legal ß 1963 AvC: type of creation doesn’t affect app of Winters)
Therefore, since 1848: 1) RGP is IR; 2) Indian water right > other citizens’
(注：两●之间是举例说明关系)
#p#副标题#e#
4. 做题：
56. 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 modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.
评：正解为(D);难度系数 ★
1) 判断题型为直接细节题： 根据题中“the treaty establishing the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation”迅速定位到文中1-6行：尽管保留地建立的协议本身未提及水权，最高法院援引该协议，判决 Fort Belknap Indian Reservation 的印第安人拥有水权。正解为(D)：保留地建立的协议并未提到保留地原居民享有水权。
2) 错解分析：
(A)：文中只说协议被援引，未说到它被challenge。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(B): 文中只说协议被援引，未说到它被rescind(解除)。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(C): 文中没说协议提到了印第安人对土地资源的使用。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(E): 文中没最高法院对协议进行修改。属于“无中生有”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
57. The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 13–20 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 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.
评：正解为(C);难度系数 ★★
1)判断题型为间接细节题： 根据题中“the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”迅速定位到文中第10行以后：文中首先归纳了联邦可以援引Winters原则收回水权的三点条件，然后说RGP的人通过其他方式获得水权，并指出应由历史实践，而非法律定义，来决定该地是否印第安保留地。这就强烈暗示如果按照既有法律基础(即“the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”)， RGP的印第安人是无法获得水权的。正解为(C)。
2) 错解分析：
(A)：FBIR当地的水权判决即为Winters案件，该案情况应符合Winters原则适用的三点条件，所以不能依据Winters原则作出与实际结论相反的判决。属于“与文意相反”类错解。
(B): “the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”并未规定具体年份，所以不能说1848年前简历的保留地都不能获得水权。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(D): “the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”并不只针对印第安保留地而言，而是对所有土地。选项意思和文意相反，属于“与文意相反”类错解。
(E): 文中明确说道，在建立保留地协议并未提及水权的情况下，Winters法则判定水权所有。选项意思和文意相反，属于“与文意相反”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
58. 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 defined 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.
评：正解为(B);难度系数 ★★★
1) 判断题型为信息题：考查文中提到的两个法案--- Winters及AvC---之间的关系，需要基于对全文的把握来做题。第一段中，“criteria”适用于该地已经被正式划分为保留地的情况;而第二段中，AvC指出水权的获取并不一定要基于先前的任何legal definition，而可以基于联邦政府的实践(是否把该地看做印第安保留地)。所以可以说AvC扩展了Winters法案关于获得水权的适用范围，正解为(B)。
2) 错解分析：
(A)：文中AvC和Winters两者间并无相互排斥和否定。属于“与文意相反”类错解。
(C): 第二段首句说“some American Indian tribes”还通过“criteria in line 10-20”之外的手段获得水权，这说明AvC并不是sole exception of “criteria in line 13-20”。属于“与文意相反”类错解。
(D): “the criteria discussed in lines 13–20”并不只针对印第安保留地而言，而是对所有土地。选项意思和文意相反，属于“与文意相反”类错解。
(E): 文中明确说道，在建立保留地协议并未提及水权的情况下，Winters法则判定水权所有。选项意思和文意相反，属于“与文意相反”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
59. The “pragmatic approach” mentioned in lines 37-38 of the passage is best defined 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 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
评：正解为(A);难度系数 ★
1) 判断题型为直接细节题：直接定位到文章37-38行，“pragmatic approach”直接对应前一句中的”practice”，文中说应由历史实践，而非法律定义，来决定该地是否印第安保留地。所以对那些从未被正式成立为保留区、但一直以来都被认为是保留区的地区，“pragmatic approach”给与了其地位身份的认可。正解为(A)。
2) 错解分析：
(B)：“pragmatic approach”针对的是保留区的身份问题，而不是特定地区内水权的归属。属于“混淆信息”类错解。
(C): “pragmatic approach”针对的是保留区的身份问题，而不是特定地区内水权的归属。属于“混淆信息”类错解。
(D): “pragmatic approach”针对的是保留区的身份问题，而不是不同人群之间的权利平衡问题。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(E): “pragmatic approach”针对的是保留区的身份问题，而不是特定地区内水权的归属;其次，“pragmatic approach”的结果和Winters原则赋予的权利是一致的。属于“混淆信息”且“与文意相反”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
60. 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
评：正解为(A)。难度系数★★
1) 把握全文逻辑线索：第一段提出Winters案例，并说往后的案件判决均可在满足三点条件情况下，援引Winters案来判定水权归联邦所支配，其中的第二个条件是“该地被联邦曾抽调它用”;第二段提到了RGP的例子，并指出RGP的土地从未被联邦正式抽调它用，因此引出了Winters原则在该地区是否适用的问题。文章在第二段中提到，RGP的情况“has not barred the application of Winters”。
2) 判断题型为手段目的题：根据题中“the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands”迅速定位到文中第二段4至6行“Although…however…”两句。此处属于强转折，强调的必定是转折句，即“this fact has not barred application of the Winters doctrine”。所以正确答案应该包括“application of the Winters doctrine”或同意转述，正解为(A)：虽然文章肯定了Winters原则在该地区适用，文章也意识到由于该地的特殊性，一开始对于Winters原则是否适用是有争议的。
3) 错解分析：
(B)：第二段3-4行明确指出联邦于1848年获得pueblo lands的sovereignty。属于“与原文相反”类错解
(C): 第二段4-5行明确指出pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; 此外，作者在pueblo lands是否被应该看做federal public lands的问题上，没有任何主观倾向，仅仅是客观描述而已。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(D): 虽然依据文章大意，可以推断出Winters原则实施后，RGP当地非印第安人的用水权会被限制，但是文章作者并没有在文中主动argue这一点。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(E): 文中没有对“federal courts 是否可以 claim jurisdiction over particular cases”的问题给出态度。属于“无中生有”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
61. 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
评：正解为(B);难度系数 ★★
1) 判断题型为主旨题：文章探讨了美国印第安保留区内的印第安人获得水权的法律基础，并在两段中分别提到了两个案例。因此正解为(B)。
2) 错解分析：
(A)：文中确实提到印第安保留区的建立，但文章主旨并非追溯建立美国印第安保留区的法律的发展历程。属于“以偏概全”类错解。
(C): 文章第一段提到判决水权可以依据的三个criteria，第二段中提出虽然有的情况不符合这三个criteria，但印第安人依然可以依法获得水权。因此第二段并不是在质疑criteria，而是在补充说明criteria。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(D): 文中并没有探讨联邦政府是从何时开始认可印第安人水权的。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(E): 文中并没有讨论不同类型保留区之间的区别。属于“无中生有”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
62. The passage suggests that the legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water flowing 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
评：正解为(E);难度系数 ★
1) 判断题型为间接细节题：根据题中“legal rights of citizens other than American Indians to the use of water”直接定位到文章41-43行，文中说，RGP内的印第安人的水权优先级高于当地其他公民的水权，即其他公民的水权受到了限制。正解为(E)。
2) 错解分析：
(A)：文中提到，AvC法令是有助于RGP地区的印第安人获得水权的，而不是保证当地其他居民的水权。属于“与文意相反”类错解。
(B): 文中只说当地其他公民的水权优先级低于印第安人水权，并没说被废止了。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(C): 文中并未提到任何建立保留地协议中有关于水权分配的条文。属于“无中生有”类错解。
(D): 文中确实提到federal land-use laws (line 17)，但并没说这些法律保证了RGP当地其他居民的水权。属于“混淆信息”类错解。
#p#副标题#e#
5. 小结：
本文的题目难度不大，干扰项迷惑性不高，只要把文章读懂了，应可正确解题。因此，本文的最大难点在于知识背景的障碍，对于美国法律体系运作的陌生度将使绝大部分考生对这篇文章心生畏惧。实际上，这篇文章内部的逻辑关系并不复杂，如果带着一定的法律常识去读文章，是比较容易把握文章脉络和各段大意进而正确解题的。所以，对于做GMAT阅读(TOEFL阅读也是如此)，我们的观点是，具备相关知识背景对于快速准确读懂文章是大有好处的。但须谨记，相关知识背景只能帮助大家快速理解文中的概念、观点以及相关体系的操作规律，大家千万不可基于相关知识背景判断文中提及的概念、观点之间的逻辑关系，或对文中提到概念、观点给出自己的看法，而应该从原文中获取关于概念、观点间的逻辑关系以及对概念、观点的评价的一切信息。归结到一句话，“知识助你理解概念和观点，原文给你逻辑关系和评价”。
（版权声明：新东方网版权所有，转载请注明来源和作者。） |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-9-13 17:19:43
收藏
收藏
