In the USA, 85% of the population over the age of 21 approve of the death penalty... The pro-hanging lobby uses four main arguments to support its call for the reintroduction of capital punishment... The arguments against the death penalty are largely humanitarian... But there are also statistical reasons for opposing it: the deterrence figures do not add up... The other reasons to oppose the death penalty are largely a matter of individual conscience and belief.
- The passage is mainly about ______
[A] the argument in favor of the death penalty
[B] the argument against the death penalty
[C] the argument about the abolition of the death penalty
[D] the argument about the reintroduction of the death penalty
- 主旨定位与逻辑推导
原文开篇介绍美国民众对死刑的支持率及执行方式，核心围绕 “支持死刑者呼吁恢复死刑的四大论据” 与 “反对死刑的人道主义、统计数据及道德信仰层面的理由” 展开。全文核心争议点是 “是否应恢复死刑”，选项 D 精准概括这一核心主题，涵盖支持与反对双方的完整论证。
- 干扰项排除
- A “支持死刑的论据”、B “反对死刑的论据” 均仅为原文部分内容，无法涵盖全文 “双方争议” 的核心结构；
- C “关于废除死刑的争议” 与原文核心不符，原文聚焦 “是否恢复死刑”，而非 “是否废除已存在的死刑”，语义偏差。
- 学术扩展：考博英语阅读理解 “争议类文本” 需关注 “核心争议点 + 双方论据” 的结构，本题中 “reintroduction of capital punishment” 是贯穿全文的关键词，解题需避免被单一立场误导，精准捕捉 “争议的核心议题”。这类法律类文本常以 “现象 - 支持方 - 反对方 - 总结” 为结构，需重点把握争议焦点而非局部论据。
- Before an amendment can be added to the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
[A] discussed [B] endorsed [C] proposed [D] revised
- 词汇辨析与语境适配
“ratified” 意为 “批准、认可（正式文件、协议等）”，侧重 “通过法定程序正式确认”，与选项 B “endorsed”（正式认可、批准）语义完全契合，句意为 “宪法修正案需经四分之三州议会批准后方可生效”，符合法律文本的正式语境。
- 干扰项排除
- A “discussed” 意为 “讨论”，仅表示交流过程，未涉及 “正式批准” 的结果，语义过浅；
- C “proposed” 意为 “提议”，指提出建议或草案，是修正案的前置环节，而非后续的批准程序；
- D “revised” 意为 “修订”，侧重修改内容，与 “批准生效” 的核心语义无关。
- 学术扩展：“ratify” 与 “endorse” 是考博英语高频法律类学术词汇，常用于宪法、条约、法案等语境。博士阶段学术写作中，这类词汇可精准传递 “法律程序中的正式确认”，需重点区分其与 “approve”（普通意义上的同意）、“sanction”（官方制裁或批准）的语义边界 ——“ratify” 特指 “对重要文件的正式批准”，“endorse” 更强调 “官方或权威机构的认可”。
But, as has been true in many other cases, when they were at last married the most ideal of situations was found to have been changed to the most practical. Instead of having shared their original duties, and as school-boys would say, going halves, they discovered that the cares of life had been doubled. This led to some distressing moments for both our friends; they understood suddenly that instead of dweling in heaven they were still upon earth and had made themselves slaves to new laws and limitations. Instead of being freer and happier than ever before, they had assumed new responsibilities, they had established a new household, and must fulfill in some way or another obligations of it. They looked back with affection to their engagement, they had been longing to have each other to themselves, apart from the world, but it seemed they never felt so keenly that they were still units in modern society.
但正如其他许多情况一样，当他们最终步入婚姻殿堂后，才发现曾经最理想的憧憬已全然变为最现实的光景。他们并未如男生们所说的 “平分秋色” 般分担原本的责任，反而发现生活的琐事与忧虑加倍了。这给两位朋友带来了不少苦恼时刻；他们猛然意识到，自己并非徜徉在天堂，而是仍身处尘世，且已沦为新的规则与束缚的奴隶。他们非但没有比以往更自由、更幸福，反而承担了新的责任 —— 建立了新的家庭，就必须以某种方式履行家庭的各项义务。他们满怀眷恋地回望订婚时光，那时他们渴望彼此专属、远离尘嚣，但此刻却无比真切地感受到，自己仍是现代社会中无法脱离群体的一份子。
- 句式优化与逻辑衔接
- 长句拆分：将首句复合句拆分为 “步入婚姻殿堂后 + 理想变现实” 两个分句，避免直译导致的冗长；
- 口语化表达处理：“going halves” 译为 “平分秋色”，既保留原文比喻义，又符合中文表达习惯；“dwelling in heaven” 译为 “徜徉在天堂”，增强文学性与感染力；
- 逻辑连贯：通过 “但”“反而”“非但没有…… 反而……” 等连接词，清晰传递原文的转折与对比逻辑，使译文流畅自然。
- 词汇精准与语境适配
- 核心术语翻译：“obligations of it” 译为 “家庭的各项义务”，补充 “家庭” 明确指代，避免语义模糊；“units in modern society” 译为 “无法脱离群体的一份子”，比直译 “现代社会的个体” 更贴合语境；
- 情感传递：“distressing moments” 译为 “苦恼时刻”，“looked back with affection” 译为 “满怀眷恋地回望”，精准还原原文的情感基调，避免生硬翻译。
- 学术规范与表达自然
- 语体一致性：采用正式书面语，同时保留原文的叙事性与情感色彩，避免过于学术化导致的生硬；
- 语义完整：无遗漏 “assumed new responsibilities”“established a new household” 等核心语义，忠实还原原文 “婚姻带来的责任与束缚” 的核心主旨。
Directions: Present your perspective on the issue below, using relevant reasons and/or examples to support your views. Write your answer on the Answer Sheet. There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society, has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Obeying Just Laws and Resisting Unjust Ones: A Citizen’s Moral and Legal Obligation
Laws are the cornerstone of social order, defining the boundaries of individual behavior and safeguarding public interests. However, laws are not inherently absolute—they can be categorized into just and unjust ones. From my perspective, every citizen has an unshakable responsibility to obey just laws, as they reflect the collective will and promote social justice; more importantly, resisting unjust laws is equally crucial, as it drives legal progress and defends human dignity. This dual obligation is essential for the healthy development of any society.
Obeying just laws is the basic prerequisite for social stability and mutual trust. Just laws, such as those against murder, theft, and fraud, are formulated to protect the fundamental rights and interests of citizens. For example, criminal laws that punish violent crimes ensure people can live in safety, while contract laws regulate commercial transactions and maintain market order. Obeying these laws not only avoids legal sanctions but also contributes to a harmonious social environment. As rational members of society, citizens should recognize that just laws are not restrictions on freedom but guarantees of it—only when everyone abides by them can individual freedom and social order coexist.
Resisting unjust laws is a moral imperative that promotes legal and social progress. Unjust laws, which violate human rights, fairness, or justice, have no legitimate basis for compliance. History is replete with examples of social progress driven by resistance to unjust laws: Mahatma Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance against British colonial laws in India led to national independence; the civil rights movement in the United States, which opposed racial segregation laws, paved the way for equality for African Americans. These cases demonstrate that peaceful and rational resistance to unjust laws can expose legal flaws, arouse public awareness, and ultimately push for legal reforms. For citizens, resisting unjust laws does not mean violating social order arbitrarily, but rather using legitimate means such as public appeals, legal litigation, and participation in social movements to urge authorities to revise flawed laws.
In conclusion, the relationship between citizens and laws is a dynamic balance between obedience and resistance. Obeying just laws maintains social stability, while resisting unjust laws promotes social progress. As responsible citizens, we should distinguish between just and unjust laws based on moral and legal principles. We must abide by just laws consciously and, when facing unjust laws, courageously and rationally resist them. Only in this way can we promote the improvement of the legal system, safeguard social justice, and realize the harmonious development of individuals and society.
- 结构框架
- 开头段：点明核心观点 —— 公民有义务遵守正义法律，更有责任抵制非正义法律，强调这一双重义务对社会发展的重要性；
- 主体段 1：论证遵守正义法律的必要性，结合刑法、合同法等实例，说明正义法律对社会稳定与个人自由的保障作用；
- 主体段 2：论证抵制非正义法律的意义，以甘地非暴力抵抗、美国民权运动为例，说明理性抵抗对法律进步的推动作用；
- 结尾段：总结升华，强调 “遵守与抵抗” 的动态平衡，呼吁公民基于道德与法律原则理性行动，呼应开头核心观点。
- 高分亮点
- 学术词汇：使用 “cornerstone”“formulated”“legitimate basis”“nonviolent resistance”“legal litigation” 等学术与法律类词汇，提升专业性；
- 逻辑衔接：通过 “However”“For example”“In conclusion” 等连接词，构建清晰的 “总 - 分 - 总” 逻辑链；
- 实例适配：结合法律类实例（刑法、合同法）与历史事件（甘地抵抗、民权运动），贴合中国政法大学考博的法学专业特色；
- 观点深刻：不局限于 “是否遵守法律” 的表层论述，延伸至 “法律的正义性判断”“理性抵抗的边界” 等深层维度，体现博士研究生的思辨能力与法律素养。
- 学术规范
符合考博英语写作 “观点明确、论证充分、语言正式” 的要求，字数控制在 230 词左右，论证兼顾理论与实例，无冗余表述，完全契合学术写作要求。
- 法律类文章需关注 “争议焦点 + 双方论据 + 逻辑结构”，精准捕捉核心争议议题，避免被局部论据误导；
- 针对 “主旨题”，重点训练 “关键词定位 + 选项语义匹配” 能力，区分 “局部观点” 与 “全文主旨”；
- 积累法律、社会正义类高频学术词汇，提升文本理解效率，尤其关注 “法律程序、权利义务” 相关术语。
- 重点积累 “法律程序、官方认可” 类学术词汇（如 ratify、endorse、sanction、obligation），结合真题例句记忆其搭配与语义差异；
- 强化 “近义词辨析” 训练，通过法律语境区分词汇的使用场景，避免用词偏差；
- 建立词汇错题本，重点突破 “法律类学术词汇 + 固定搭配” 考点，结合法学类写作深化理解与应用。
- 法律类翻译需确保 “法律术语精准”，积累相关主题词汇，如 “amendment、constitution、obligation” 等；
- 处理英文长句时，合理拆分复合句、转折结构，使用中文短句优化表达，保持逻辑连贯；
- 关注情感与语气传递，在法律文本的正式性基础上，还原原文的叙事或论证基调，避免生硬翻译。
- 社会正义、法律相关写作需遵循 “观点 - 论证 - 实例 - 总结” 的结构，观点明确，论证兼顾法律原则与道德维度；
- 结合法律实例（如具体法律条文、经典案例）与历史事件，增强说服力，体现法学专业视野；
- 运用学术化表达与逻辑连接词，提升文本专业性，结尾段升华至 “法律进步、社会正义” 的宏观视角，符合博士研究生的学术视野与社会关怀。
通过系统利用真题资料和科学的备考方法，考生可高效提升考博英语综合能力，助力顺利上岸中国政法大学博士研究生。
您现在的位置： 