Although the legal systems of England and the Unite States are superficially similar, they differ profoundly in their approaches to and uses of legal reasons: substantive reasons are more common than formal reasons in the United States, whereas in England the reverse is true. This distinction reflects a difference in the visions of law that prevail in the two countries. In England the law has traditionally been viewed as a system of rules; the United States favors a vision of law as an outward expression of the community’s sense of right and justice.
Substantive reasons, as applied to law, are based on moral, economic, political, and other considerations. These reasons are found both “in the law” and “outside the law,” so to speak. Substantive reasons inform the content of a large part of the law: constitutions, statutes, contracts, verdicts, and the like. Consider, for example, a statute providing that “no vehicles shall be taken into public parks.” Suppose that no specific rationales or purposes were explicitly written into this statute, but that it was clear (from its legislative history) that the substantive purpose of the statute was to ensure quiet and safety in the park. Now suppose that a veterans’ group mounts a World War II jeep (in running order but without a battery) as a war memorial on a concrete slab in the park, and charges are brought against its members. Most judges in the United States would find the defendants not guilty because what they did had no adverse effect on park quiet and safety.
Formal reasons are different in that they frequently prevent substantive reasons from coming into play, even when substantive reasons are explicitly incorporated into the law at hand. For example, when a document fails to comply with stipulated requirements, the court may render the document legally ineffective. A will requiring written witness may be declared null and void and, therefore, unenforceable for the formal reason that the requirement was not observed. Once the legal rule—that a will is invalid for lack of proper witnessing—has been clearly established, and the legality of the rule is not in question, application of that rule precludes from consideration substantive arguments in favor of the wills validity or enforcement.
Legal scholars in England and the United States have long bemused themselves with extreme examples of formal and substantive reasoning. On the one hand, formal reasoning in England has led to wooden interpretations of statutes and unwillingness to develop the common law through judicial activism. On the other hand, freewheeling substantive reasoning in the United States has resulted in statutory interpretations so liberal that the texts of some statutes have been ignored altogether.
51. Which one of the following best describes the content of the passage as a whole?
52. It can be inferred from the passage that English judges would be likely to find the veterans’ group discussed in the second paragraph guilty of violating the statute because ______.
53. Which one of the following best describes the function of the last paragraph of the passage?
54. The author of the passage suggests that in English law a substantive interpretation of a legal rule might be warranted under which one of the following circumstances?
55. According to the passage, which one of the following statements about substantive reasons is true?
问题1选项
A.An analysis of similarities and differences between the legal systems of England and the United States.
B.A contrast between the types of reasons embodied in the United States and English legal systems.
C.An explanation of how two distinct visions of the law shaped the development of legal atoning.
D.A presentation of two types of legal reasons that shows the characteristics they have in common.
问题2选项
A.not to do so would encourage others to act as the group did
B.the veterans failed to demonstrate that their activities had no adverse effect on the public
C.the veterans failed to comply with the stipulated requirements of the statute
D.the veterans failed to comply with the substantive purpose of the statute
问题3选项
A.It presents the consequences of extreme interpretations of the two types of legal reasons discussed by the author.
B.It shows how legal scholars can incorrectly use extreme examples to support their views.
C.It presents scholars’ characterizations of both legal systems that are only partially correct.
D.It suggests how characterizations of the two types of legal reasons can become convoluted and inaccurate.
问题4选项
A.Social conditions have changed to the extent that to continue to enforce the rule would be to decide contrary to present-day social norms.
B.Individuals who have violated the legal rule argue that application of the rule would lead to unfair judicial interpretations.
C.Superior court judges have consistently ruled in decisions regarding the interpretation of the legal rule.
D.The legality of the rule is in question and its enforcement is open to judicial interpretation.
问题5选项
A.They must be explicitly written into the law in order to be relevant to the application of the law.
B.They often provide judges with specific rationales for disregarding the laws of the land.
C.They are legal in nature and determine particular applications of most laws.
D.They may be written into laws, but they may also exert an external influence on the law.
第1题:B
第2题:C
第3题:A
第4题:D
第5题:D
第1题:
主旨大意题。题干意思是“下列哪个选项最好地描述了整篇文章的内容？”。文章首段前两句提到Although the legal systems of England and the Unite States are superficially similar, they differ profoundly in their approaches to and uses of legal reasons: substantive reasons are more common than formal reasons in the United States, whereas in England the reverse is true.（虽然英美两国的法律制度在表面上是相似的，但在对待和使用法律理由方面却有着深刻的不同：在美国，实质理由比形式理由更为普遍，而在英国，情况恰恰相反。），根据这两个句子可知全文是围绕英美两国在在法律上不同的理由类型展开讨论的，因此B项“英美法律制度中所体现的理由类型之对比”符合题意。A项“英美两国法律制度的异同分析”，文中没有提到英美两国的法律制度，只在开头提到了Although the legal systems of England and the Unite States are superficially similar（虽然英美两国的法律制度在表面上是相似的），但是是为了引出下文对法律理由方面的论述；C项“解释两种不同的法律视角如何塑造了法律赎罪的发展”太片面；D项“介绍两种类型的法律理由，以显示它们的共同特征”，前半句正确，后半句错误，文章没有介绍两种法律理由的共同特征。因此该题选B。
第2题:
推理判断题。题干意思是“从文章中可以推断，英国法官很可能会发现第二段中讨论的退伍军人组织违反了法律，因为……”。文章中第二段最后两句提到Now suppose that a veterans’ group mounts a World War II jeep (in running order but without a battery) as a war memorial on a concrete slab in the park, and charges are brought against its members. Most judges in the United States would find the defendants not guilty because what they did had no adverse effect on park quiet and safety.（现在假设一个退伍军人组织把一辆二战吉普车（正常运行，但没有电池）放在公园的混凝土板上作为战争纪念碑，其成员就会受到指控。大多数美国法官认为被告无罪，因为他们的行为对公园的安静和安全没有负面影响。），由此可知美国的实质法律理由不会认为被告无罪是因为他们没有在实质上对公园的安静和安全造成影响；所以由此可以推断，以形式法律理由为主的英国法官可能会认为被告因为没有遵循规定要求而有罪；故C项“退伍军人没有遵守法令规定的要求”，正确。A项“如果不这样做，就会鼓励其他国家效仿该组织的做法”，文中没有提到。B项“退伍军人没能证明他们的活动对公众没有负面影响”，即使他们证明了也仍然会判为违反法律，因为英国是形式法律理由，而不是实质理由。D项“退伍军人没有遵守法令的实质目的”，这是实质理由的内容，与题干不符。因此该题选C。
第3题:
推理判断题。题干意思是“下列哪一项最好地描述了文章最后一段的功能？”。根据题干定位到文章最后一段的内容Legal scholars in England and the United States have long bemused themselves with extreme examples of formal and substantive reasoning. On the one hand, formal reasoning in England has led to wooden interpretations of statutes and unwillingness to develop the common law through judicial activism. On the other hand, freewheeling substantive reasoning in the United States has resulted in statutory interpretations so liberal that the texts of some statutes have been ignored altogether.（长期以来，英国和美国的法律学者一直用形式推理和实质推理的极端例子来麻痹自己。一方面，英国的形式推理导致了对成文法的呆板解释，以及不愿通过司法能动主义发展习惯法。另一方面，美国随心所欲的实质性推理导致了法律解释太随意，以至于一些法规的文本被完全忽视。），由此可以推断，最后一段的内容提出了这两类法律理由极端解释的后果，因此A项“它提出了作者所讨论的两类法律原因的极端解释的后果”正确。B项“它显示了法律学者如何错误地使用极端的例子来支持他们的观点”，最后一段对于法律学者如何错误地使用极端的例子来支持他们的观点没有做详细描述，所以该项错误。C项“它提出了学者们对两种法律制度的描述只是部分正确”和D项“它暗示了这两类法律原因的特征是如何变得令人费解和不准确的”都比较片面。因此该题选A。
第4题:
推理判断题。题干意思是“文章作者建议，在英国法中，在下列哪一种情况下，可能需要对法律规则进行实质性的解释？”。第三段最后一句提到Once the legal rule—that a will is invalid for lack of proper witnessing—has been clearly established, and the legality of the rule is not in question，application of that rule precludes from consideration substantive arguments in favor of the will's validity or enforcement.（一旦法律规则——遗嘱因缺乏适当的证人而无效——已经明确确立，规则的合法性也不存在问题，该规则的适用就阻止了支持遗嘱有效性或强制执行的实质性论据的考虑。），由此可推断，当规则的合法性存在问题的时候就会需要进一步的解释；所以D项“该规则的合法性受到质疑，其执行也有待司法解释”符合题意。A项“社会条件已经发生了很大的变化，如果继续执行这一规则，就会违背当今的社会规范”这与题干无关；B项“违反法律规则的个人认为，适用该规则将导致不公平的司法解释”没有提到；C项“高等法院的法官一贯在有关法律规则解释的判决中作出裁决”，内容与英国的形式法律理由不符。因此该题选D。
第5题:
推理判断题。题干意思是“根据文章，下列关于实质理由的陈述哪一个是正确的？”。文章第二段前两句提到Substantive reasons, as applied to law, are based on moral, economic, political, and other considerations. These reasons are found both “in the law” and “outside the law”（适用于法律的实质性原因是基于道德、经济、政治和其他考虑。可以这么说，这些原因既存在于“法律之内”，也存在于“法律之外”。），由此可知实质性原因可以写在法律之中，也可以对法律施加外部压力，故D项“它们可能被写入法律，但它们也可能对法律施加外部影响”符合题意。A项“它们必须明确地写入法律，以便与法律的适用有关”太绝对；B项“它们常常为法官提供无视法律的具体理由”和C项“它们在本质上是合法的，并决定大多数法律的特定适用”都比较片面，只是实质理由的一方面。因此该题选D。
