It has wormed its way into almost every sphere of life, and the law is no exception. Artificial intelligence can now handle a lot of the drudgery of legal work; screening mountains of documents for relevant titbits, for example, or automatically drafting and checking boilerplate contracts. There's even a "superintelligent attorney" app, ROSS, powered by IBM's Watson supercomputer, that fields legal queries by speed-reading legislation and other resources. But what does it mean for the law when an algorithm, rather than a person, calls the shots? Frank Levy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Dana Remus at the University of North Carolina School of Law have been on the case, exploring the potential implications of robotic legal assistants. In a report published online last month ,they found that A.I. poses less of a threat to legal jobs than some fear. But they also suggest that computers, left unchecked, can have a detrimental impact on the law. Still, A. I. will introduce new uncertainties by dint of its ability to reveal legal trends or precedents, for example. Fed the right data, machine learning algorithms can tell us how individual judges ruled, how individual companies or lawyers fared in past litigation, or how much money was involved in lawsuits. Pop details of a current case in, and the computer will forecast your chances of success. This approach might be more efficient, but it could slow the evolution of the law, the pair warn. Take the predictions too seriously, too often, and lawyers could be more reluctant to take on cases with the potential to break new ground, making it less likely that landmark judgements will be passed. By the same token, if A.I. spots a pattern of discrimination—say, that women are more likely to lose in certain types of case—it might sway lawyers' decisions and so perpetuate the problem rather than bringing it to light. Legal A.I. doesn't exist just to save lawyers time and money: it also promises to help close the "justice gap," by offering digital advice to those who can't afford a lawyer. Online dispute resolution platforms already help mediate between users on eBay and PayPal, for example. But Levy and Remus suggest that A.I. could also soon be counselling people how best to skirt the law, rather than abide by it.
单选题 The capabilities of A.I. can be demonstrated in
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】解析：(1)据题目顺序，可定位至第1段。(2)根据文章，“A．I．已经进入我们生活的方方面面”(第1段：sphere)，“A．I．可以处理法律工作的苦活”(第l段：drudgery)，“从堆积如山的文件中筛选相关细节”(第1段：screening)。据此，确定选项[C]是原文内容的转换。
单选题 The overall attitude of Frank Levy and Dana Remus towards the issue is
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析：(1)根据题干关键词Frank Levy和Dana Remus定位至第2段。(2)根据文章，“当某一算法而非某人发号施令，情况会怎样?”(第2段：calls the shots)，作者通过这个设问句引出了讨论的话题。(3)之后引用了Frank Levy和Dana Remus的看法：“机器法律助手的出现意义深远”(第2段：potential implications)．“A．I．对工作的威胁也许不像人们担忧的那么大”(第2段:threat)，但是，“如果任其发展，会对法律造成有害的影响”(第2段：unchecked，detrimental impact)。这两人都流露出了“审慎和谨慎”的态度。因此，选项[D]正确。
单选题 It can be learned from Paragraph 3 that
【正确答案】 B
【答案解析】解析：(1)根据题干关键词定位至第3段。(2)根据文章，“A．I．有能力揭示法律的趋势和判例”(第3段：by dint of its ability to…)，“输入正确的数据”(第3段：Fed the right data)，A．I．可以完成多项任务。利用当前案件的数据，“可以预测胜诉的机会”(第3段：forecast)。(3)第4段又再次出现了有关预测的事宜，这说明“预测”是一个关键概念。据此分析，选项[B]正确。
单选题 Which of the following can be a disadvantage of A.I.?
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】解析：(1)注意题干关键词disadvantage，文章从第4段开始分析A．I．可能存在的问题。(2)根据文章，“如果认真对待A．I．的预测，律师在某些案件中不太可能开辟先河”(第4段：reluctant，to break new ground)，“结果便是，通过标志性审判的可能性变小了”(第4段：making it less likely)。(3)此外，“同样的道理，律师的决定会受到动摇，问题会变得更严重”(第5段：By the same token。言外之意便是：律师在A．I．的帮助下，只会按部就班的做事，不愿意去承担风险。故选项[A]正确。
单选题 Levy and Remus would object to A.I.'s tendency to
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】解析：(1)根据题目顺序，再根据题干关键词，可定位至第7段。(2)根据文章，“Levy和Remus认为，A．I．可能很快教会人们如何规避法律，而不是遵守法律”(第7段：to skirt the law)。(3)此外，从文章开头就埋下了伏笔(wormed its way)，文章多次使用了suggest(暗示着)，“让问题恶化，而不是让问题得以曝光”(第5段：bringing to light)。据此，确定选项[D]是原文内容的转述。