To Journalists, three of anything makes a trend. So after three school shootings in six days, speculation about an epidemic of violence in American classrooms was inevitable, and wrong. Violence in schools has fallen by half since the mid-1990s; children are more than 100 times more likely to be murdered outside the school walls than within them. On September 27th a 53-year-old petty criminal, Duane Morrison, walked into a school in Bailey, Colorado, with two guns. He took six girls hostage, molested some of them, and killed one before committing suicide as police stormed the room. And on September 29th a boy brought two guns into his school in Cazenovia, Wisconsin. Prosecutors say that 15-year-old Eric Hainstock may have planned to kill several people. But staff acted quickly when they saw him with a shotgun, calling the police and putting the school into "lock-down". The head teacher, who confronted him in a corridor, was the only one killed. October 2nd a 32-year-old milk-truck driver, Charles Roberts, entered a one-room Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. He lined the girls up, tied their feet and, after an hour, shot them, killing at least five. He killed himself as police broke into the classroom. What to make of such horrors? Some experts see the Colorado and Pennsylvania cases as an extreme manifestation of a culture of violence against women. Both killers appeared to have a sexual motive, and both let all the boys in the classroom go free. But it is hard to infer from such unusual examples, and one must note that violence against women is less than half what it was in 1995. Other experts see all three cases as symptomatic of a change in the way men commit suicide. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist, told a radio audience "men are deciding to take their lives, "and they"re not going alone anymore. They"re taking people down with them". True, but not very often. Gun-control enthusiasts think school massacres show the need for tighter restrictions. It is too easy, they say, for criminals such as Mr. Morrison and juveniles such as Mr. Hainstock to obtain guns. Gun enthusiasts draw the opposite conclusion: that if more teachers carried concealed handguns, they could shoot potential child-killers before they kill. George Bush has now called for a conference on school violence. Will it unearth anything new, or valuable? After the Columbine massacre in 1999, the FBI produced a report on school shooters. It concluded that it was impossible to draw up a useful profile of a potential shooter because "a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviours on any checklist of warning signs".
单选题 According to the passage, an epidemic of violence in American classrooms was inevitable in that ______.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:第一段:To journalists,three of anything makes a trend.So...,speculation about an epidemic of violence in American classrooms was inevitable,and...;children are more than 100 times more likely to be murdered outside the school walls than within them,文章的第一句就讲到三件事情的发生就能表明一种趋势,后文把这一抽象概念具体化.三个枪击事件表明现在的校园暴力倾向,况且是在六天之内发生的,所以A选项正确。本文倒数第二段的确讲到枪支管制的问题,但那是支持枪支管制的人的观点,这是一个必要非充分条件,因此C选项错误。B选项的观点是A选项观点的结果,在六天之内发生了三起校园枪杀事件导致孩子们在校内被杀害的可能性要比在校外要高,但与该段末句原文正好相反,因此B也错误。D选项貌似正确,但它与本文内容无关。本文的重点是校园枪击事件,并非整个社会的治安问题。D选项为"not only...but also..."结构,强调后者,所以D错误。
单选题 Which Of the following is true according to Paragraphs 2-4?
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:第二段末句:...killed one before committing suicide as police...;第三段末句:The head teacher,...,was the only one killed。第四段末句:He killed himself as police broke into the classroom.本题测试的是考生对文章第二段到第四段内容的把握。有些考生认为在三起案件中,第一起和第三起的凶手都当场自杀了,但仔细阅读文章后发现第二段"committing suicide"为"ing"结尾,表示"将要",第三段中说"校长是唯一被杀的人"。所以,只有第三个人自杀身亡了,D选项正确。A选项干扰性很大,文章第三段确实讲到校长在9月29日被杀,但A选项说的是校长被杜安纳.莫里森杀害,此人出现在一个事件中,属于搭配错误。因此,A选项错误。谨记:一定要认真阅读每个选项动作的施动者和受动者,防止搭配错误。B选项和C选项都是对犯罪原因进行分析,而这三段的内容都是描述事情发展的始末。因此,无论这两个选项的意思是否与原文相符,都是跨区选项。考研中很多题目并不是完全根据自然段来提问的,一个问题可能涉及几个自然段,而这几段都在一个语言目的区域中。而所谓跨区选项是指那些并不在题干所涉及的目的区域中的选项。
单选题 According to Helen Smith, why did the men kill others before they commit suicide?
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析:第六段第二、三句:men are deciding to take their lives,and they"re not going alone anymore.They"re taking people down with them.本题测试的是考生对心理学家海伦.史密斯的话的理解。第六段中史密斯提到,"men are deciding to take their lives",在这句话中,"their"指的是前面提到的"men",实际就是自杀者。"take people down with them"指的是把别人拉—下水,也就是陪他们一起死。所以C选项正确。根据常识,一般自杀的人生活上不顺利,因此对社会有仇视心理,有可能在死前以极端的手段报复社会,但这只是凭常识的判断,并不是史密斯的观点。因此A选项错误。B选项和A选项有相似之处,也是凭借常识的主观判断,不是心理学家的观点。因此B也错误。谨记:一定注意不要被常识所误导,回答题目要紧扣文章内容,根据文章中的说法和作者的观点进行选择。D选项看似在文章第五段中有所提及,但并不是自杀者杀人的原因,如果仅仅是要满足性欲望,就不会非要把人杀死了。所以D错误。
单选题 Gun enthusiasts believe that ______.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析:本题测试的是考生对积极支持枪支管控的人士和积极反对禁枪的人士的观点的理解。文章第七段:Gun-control enthusiasts think school massacres show the need for tighter restrictions...Gun enthusiasts draw the opposite conclusion:that if more teachers carried concealed handguns,they could shoot potential child-killers before they kill.文章第七段对比了这两种人的不同观点:前者认为正是由于对枪支管制过于松懈,才导致罪犯可以轻易获得枪支,实施屠杀;后者认为如果有更多老师携带枪支,就可以有效制止犯罪行为的发生。所以D选项正确。A选项前半部分应该是正确的,反对禁枪的人认为应该有更多的老师携带枪支,但目的不是保护老师自己,而是保护学生。因为他们所防范的是child-killers而不是teacher-killers,因此A选项错误。B选项也有一定的迷惑性,虽然反对禁枪的人认为企图杀害儿童的持枪者应该在实施枪击前就被打死,但他们强调的不是对他们的惩罚,而是老师对学生的保护。因此B也错误。C选项过于引申了反对禁枪者的意思,原文中并没有指出老师获得枪支是否困难,只是说如果有更多老师携带枪支,企图杀害孩子的人就不会那么容易得手。所以C错误。
单选题 Why did FBI deem it impossible to produce a useful profile of a possible shooter?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析:本题测试的是考生对文章最后一段内容的理解。After...It concluded that...because "a great many adolescents who will never commit violent acts will show some of the behaviours on any checklist of warning signs".FBI在对校园枪击案的报告中指出,"很多永远不会有暴力行为的:青少年也会有某些越界行为"。因此,不能凭借一个人某些应受到警告的表现,就断定他会成为枪击者。所以A选项正确。B选项是将A选项反过来说,但并不是FBI报告中的确切说法,因此B选项错误。C选项中的几个重点词(Columbine massacre,new or valuable)都在上面两句话中出现过,但与不能从外在表现判断一个人是否会成为凶手的原因无关。因此C也错误。D选项在文章中没有谈及,属于主观猜测,故错误。