In a rare unanimous ruling, the US Supreme Court has overturned the corruption conviction of a former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell. But it did so while holding its nose at the ethics of his conduct , which included accepting gifts such as a Rolex watch and a Ferrari automobile from a company seeking access to government. The high court' s decision said the judge in Mr. McDonnell' s trail failed to tell a jury that it must look only at his "official acts," or the former governor's decisions on "specific" and "unsettled" issues related to his duties. Merely helping a gift-giver gain access to other officials, unless done with clear intent to pressure those officials, is not corruption, the justices found. The court did suggest that accepting favors in return for opening doors is "distasteful" and "nasty." But under anti-bribery laws, proof must be made of concrete benefits, such as approval of a contract or regulation. Simply arranging a meeting, making a phone call, or hosting an event is not an "official act." The court' s ruling is legally sound in defining a kind of favoritism that is not criminal. Elected leaders must be allowed to help supporters deal with bureaucratic problems without fear of prosecution for bribery. "The basic compact underlying representative government," wrote Chief Justice John Robert for the court, "assumes that public officials will hear from their constituents and act on their concerns." But the ruling reinforces the need for citizens and their elected representatives, not the courts, to ensure equality of access to government. Officials must not be allowed to play favorites in providing information or in arranging meetings simply because an individual or group provides a campaign donation or a personal gift. This type of integrity requires well-enforced laws in government transparency, such as records of official meetings, rules on lobbying, and information about each elected leader's sources of wealth. Favoritism in official access can fan public perceptions of corruption. But it is not always corruption. Rather officials must avoid double standards, or different types of access for average people and the wealthy. If connections can be bought, a basic premise of democratic society—that all are equal in treatment by government—is undermined. Good governance rests on an understanding of the inherent worth of each individual. The court' s ruling is a step forward in the struggle against both corruption and official favoritism.

单选题 The underlined sentence(Para. 1)most probably shows that the court

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】解析：细节题。根据题干中给出的已知信息可以定位到文章第一段中画线句子。要正确理解划线的句子需要了解本句中涉及的几个代词和固定表达。句中的it指的是上文提到的the US Supreme Court。代词so指代的是上文中提到的overturn the conviction of a former Virginia govemor。while引导时间状语从句，固定表达hold one’s nose表示“嗤之以鼻”。把这几个问题解决了之后，本句的意思就变得明朗了：“然而最高法庭对他的某些行为——收受企图接近政府的企业赠送的劳力士手表和法拉利轿车——所涉及的道德问题嗤之以鼻”。那么C项“法庭对于麦克唐纳的行为表示不屑”就是对文章的同义替换。

单选题 According to Paragraph 4, an official act is deemed corruptive only if it involves

单选题 The court' s ruling is based on the assumption that public officials are

【正确答案】 C

【答案解析】解析：细节题。根据题干关键词court’s ruling，assumption和public official定位到文章第五段最后一句，assume可以和题干中的assumption进行同义替换。文章定位词之后的内容表述为“代表制政府的基本契约是建立在：公务员听从选民的意见并且执行选民的意愿”。C项“(公务员)有理由满足选民的需要”符合文意，constituents意为“选民”，可与supporters“支持者”同义替换。故 C项为正确答案。

单选题 Well-enforced laws in government transparency are needed to

【正确答案】 B

【答案解析】解析：细节题。根据题干关键词Well-enforced laws和transparency定位到文章第六段的最后一句。但是这句话的句首出现了指代This type of integrity引导我们从定位句的前一句找答案。上句表明：“政府官员不得因个人或集体捐款和私人赠送而在提供信息和安排会议方面出现偏颇。”换句话说就是要保证官员在执行公务时保证公平公正。所以这道题目的正确答案是B项。