Text 4
In recent years, there has been an increasing awareness of the inadequacies of the judicial system in the United States. Costs are staggering both for the taxpayers and the litigants — and the litigants, or parties, have to wait sometimes many years before having their day in court. Many suggestions have been made concerning of the situation, but as in most branches of government, changes come slowly.
One suggestion that has been made in order to maximize the efficiency of the system is to allow districts that have an overabundance of pending cases to barrow judges from other districts that do not have such a backlog. Another suggestion is to use pretrial conferences, in which the judge meets in his chambers with the litigants and their attorneys in order to narrow the issues, limit the witnesses, and provide for a more orderly trial. The theory behind pretrial conferences is that judges will spend less time on each case and parties will more readily settle before trial when they realize the adequacy of their claims and their opponents9 evidence. Unfortunately, at least one study had shown that pretrial conferences actually use more judicial time than they save, rarely result in pretrial settlements, and actually result in higher damage settlements.
Many states have now established another method, small-claims courts, in which cases over small sums of money can be disposed of with considerable dispatch. Such proceedings cost the litigants almost nothing. In California, for example, the parties must appear before the judges without the assistance of counsel. The proceedings are quite informal and there is no pleading— the litigants need make only a one-sentence statement of their claim. By going to these types of court, the plaintiff waives any right to jury trial and the right to appeal the decision.
In coming years, we can expect to see more and more innovations in the continuing effort to remedy a situation which must be remedied if the citizens who have valid claims are going to be able to have their day in court.
The pretrial conference, in theory, is supposed to do all of the following EXCEPT________.
文章第二段首先提到了 “...in which the judge meets...in order to narrow the issues” 通过预审会议，法官和 律师可以对案件进行有效压缩。故 A 正确。随后提到了 “The theory behind pretrial conferences is that judges will spend less time on each case” 预审会议理论上会帮助法官节省处理案件的时间。故 C 正确。同段又提到 “ and parties will more readily settle before trial”，即通过预审，使当事人在开庭前就已准备充分。故 B 正确。根据第二段最后一句“ ...actually result in higher damage settlements ”可知预审会议在实际操作中带来了更多的不利因素。故选D。
What is the main topic of the passage?
根据文章最后一段提到的 “In coming years, we can expect to see more and more innovations in the continuing effort to remedy a situation” 可知，我们希望在接下来的时间里，会有更多的创意和努力用来解决目前的问题。由此可知此篇文章主要论述了在改善目前司法低效方面付出的努力太少。故选C。
The word “litigants” in the first paragraph means most nearly________.
根据原文可知“司法审判涉及原告，被告等当事人以及双方律师等于当事人相关的人员。litigants诉讼当事人。 jury member陪审团成员。commentators评论员。taxpayers纳税人。故选C。
Which of the following is true about small-claims courts?
文章倒数第二段提到了 “By going to these types of court, the plaintiff waives any right to jury trial and the right to appeal the decision” 这种类型的法庭，原告没有要求陪审团的权利也没有上诉的权利。故选 C。
What can we assume from the passage?
文章最后一段提到了 “remedy a situation which must be remedied”，对于一些有需要的情形，制定相应的补救方案。故 选 A。