单选题
There has been a lot of hand-wringing over the death of
Elizabeth Steinberg. Without blaming anyone in particular, neighbors, friends,
social workers, the police and newspaper editors have struggled to define the
community's responsibility to Elizabeth and to other battered children. As the
collective soul-searching continues, there is a pervading sense that the system
failed her. The fact is, in New York State the system couldn't
have saved her. It is almost impossible to protect a child from violent parents,
especially if they are white, middle-class, well-educated and represented by
counsel. Why does the state permit violence against Children?
There are a number of reasons. First, parental privilege is a rationalization.
In the past, the law was giving its approval to the biblical injunction against
sparing the rod. Second, while everyone agrees that the state
must act to remove children from their homes when there is danger of serious
physical or emotional harm, many child advocates believe that state intervention
in the absence of serious injury is more harmful than helpful. Third, courts and
legislatures tread carefully when their actions intrude or threaten to intrude
on a relationship protected by the Constitution. In 1923, the Supreme Court
recognized the "liberty of parent and guardian to direct the upbringing and
education of children under their control." More recently, in 1977, it upheld
the teacher's privilege to use corporal punishment against schoolchildren. Read
together, these decisions give the constitutional imprimatur to parental use of
physical force. Under the best conditions, small children
depend utterly on their parents for survival. Under the worst, their dependency
dooms them. While it is questionable whether anyone or anything could have saved
Elizabeth Steinberg, it is plain that the law provided no protection.
To the contrary, by justifying the use of physical force against children
as an acceptable method of education and control, the law lent a measure of
plausibility and legitimacy to her parents' conduct. More than 80 years ago, in
the teeth of parental resistance and Supreme Court doctrine, the New York State
Legislature acted to eliminate child labor law. Now, the state must act to
eliminate child abuse by banning corporal punishment. To break the vicious cycle
of violence, nothing less will answer. If there is a lesson to be drawn from the
death of Elizabeth Steinberg, it is this: spare the rod and spare the
child.
单选题
The New York State law seems to provide least protection of a child
from violent parents of ______.
A. a family on welfare
B. a poor uneducated family
C. an educated black family
D. a middle-class white family
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据第二段的最后一句“...especially if they are white, middle-class, well-educated and represented by counsel.”可知，答案为D。
单选题
"Sparing the rod" (黑体部分) means ______.
A. spoiling children
B. punishing children
C. not caring about children
D. not beating children
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】[解析] 词汇理解题。“sparing the rod”出现在第三段的末尾，通过“against”一词可知，“law”反对“sparing the rod”。而第一句表明，“law”不阻止暴力，这表明“sparing the rod”意思等同于非暴力，四个选项中。D选项正是此意。故正确答案为D。
单选题
Corporal punishment against schoolchildren is ______.
A. taken as illegal in the New York State
B. considered being in the teacher's province
C. officially approved by law
D. disapproved by school teachers
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】[解析] 细节题。根据第四段的倒数第二句“In 1977, it upheld the teacher's privilege to use corporal punishment against schoolchildren.”分析可知，“Corporal punishment against schoolchildren”是老师的特权，即正确答案为B。
单选题
From the article we can infer that Elizabeth Steinberg is probably the
victim of ______.
A. teachers' corporal punishment
B. misjudgment of the court
C. parents' ill-treatment
D. street violence
【正确答案】
C
【答案解析】[解析] 推理题。在第二段中，“It is almost impossible to protect a child from violent parents.”，而Elizabeth Steinberg正是“a child”中的一员。由此可知，Elizabeth Steinberg是父母虐待的受害者。故正确答案为C。
单选题
The writer of this article thinks that banning corporal punishment will
in the long run ______.
A. prevent violence of adults
B. save more children
C. protect children from ill-treatment
D. better the system
【正确答案】
A
【答案解析】[解析] 主题型题。最后一段第二句“the state must act to eliminate child abuse by banning corporal punishment”告诉我们，“banning corporal punishment”即时的效果是“eliminate child abuse”，或称“protect children from ill-treatment”，但从长远来看，它的作用还是在于“break the vicious cycle of violence”，而“violence”正是来源于成人。故正确答案为A。