单选题 The question of ethics in the legal profession is one that has plagued the industry since its inception. The common image of an attorney is one who will resort to any unethical trick to twist the laws to fit his purposes. In the more specific industry of criminal law, defense attorneys are often criticized for advocating on behalf of defendants who are "obviously guilty," thus becoming roadblocks on the path to justice. Much to the contrary, however, defense attorneys provide a valuable serve that should earn them praise, not scorn.
While it is true that every lawyer will do everything within his power to interpret the laws in the manner most beneficial to his client, such a characterization is by no means limited to defense attorneys. The prosecutor will do the same thing, employing all his legal knowledge and know-how to establish the guilt of the defendant. In this respect, the vague nature of the law is highlighted, and it becomes a virtual necessity for each side to use every tool at their disposal, on the assumption that the other side will also use every tool at his. The net result emerges as a positive, in which the tricks of the opposing attorneys cancel one another out, leaving only the truth, clearer and devoid of manipulation, presented for the jury's consideration.
Further, the defense attorney is a vital element of the American judicial system, in that without him the defendant would stand no chance whatsoever. Under the constitution, even the most "obvious guilty" defendants are guaranteed the right to a fair trial, involving someone able and willing to advocate on his behalf. Of course, there are bad apples in the industry who are unethical and care nothing for actual justice, and whose only concerns are their wallets. Generally speaking, however, without defense attorneys, the system would crumble into a mere machine in which defendants are assumed guilty, without a chance to argue or prove otherwise, and many innocent people falsely charged with crimes would be severely punished for transgressions that they didn't commit. It is a basic fact that the adversarial system of justice in the United States is necessary in order to ensure the fairest and most unbiased presentation and evaluation of the facts possible. Without defense attorneys, that system cannot be carried out, and would result in a loss of the civil liberties that the nation enjoys and treasures. To that end, all of those who make that process a reality, including defense attorneys, deserve our support and admiration, not our suspicion and disdain.

单选题 The best title for this passage would be ______.
A. Ethics and the Defense Attorneys
B. Modern Law and Society
C. A Misunderstood Profession
D. Vital Elements of the Adversarial Judicial System
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】这是一道主旨题。文章第一段指出：律师行业的道德准则问题一直困扰着这个行业，通常情况下，律师给人的印象就是不择手段扭曲法律以达到个人目的；然而事实却恰恰相反，辩护律师做了非常宝贵的工作，这应该为他们赢得赞誉，而不是责难。随后，文章分析了产生现象的原因，说明了律师的重要性。文章最后指出：所有使公正得以实现的人，包括辩护律师，都应该得到我们的支持和钦佩，而不是怀疑和鄙视。这说明，本文主要讲的是人们对律师的误解。C“一个被误解的行业”，可以表达文章的主题。A明显不能表达文章的主题；B扩大了文章的主题，所以不对；D只是文章第三、四段的内容，不能表达文章的主题。
单选题 For what reason are lawyers criticized?
A. Because they interpret the laws in roundabout ways to achieve their desired result.
B. Because they violate laws so as to accomplish their goals.
C. Because they lack an ethical basis upon which to fulfill their duties.
D. Because they advocate on behalf of those who obviously deserve punishment.
【正确答案】 A
【答案解析】这是一道细节题。文章第一段第二句话说“律师给人的印象就是不择手段地扭曲法律以达到个人目的”，第二段第一句话说“每位律师都竭尽所能在其职责范围内以一种对自己当事人最有利的方式来诠释法律”。这说明，人们之所以批评律师，是因为他们认为律师不择手段地扭曲法律以达到个人目的。A说“因为他们以迂回方式诠释法律，以实现他们预期的目标”，这与文章的意思符合。文中没有提到B和C；D是美国宪法的规定，不是人们批评律师的原因。
单选题 How does the author respond to the prevailing attitude toward defense attorneys?
A. He explains the reason why those attitudes exist and continue to dominate popular perceptions.
B. He defends those lawyers against such attacks.
C. He gives the reason why those attitudes are false and presents more accurate view.
D. He harshly criticizes those attitudes.
【正确答案】 C
【答案解析】这是一道结构题。作者在文章第一、二段说明了人们对律师的错误观点。在第三、四段指出：在美国的司法体制中，辩护律师是一个至关重要的因素，因为如果没有他们，被告将没有任何机会为自己申辩；为了确保事实能够得到最公正、最没有偏见的表述和评价，美国就必须具备对抗性的司法体制；如果没有辩护律师，这种制度的目标将无法实现，美国人拥有并且倡导的公民自由权也将丧失。这说明，作者是先指出错误观点，然后提出正确观点。C说“他说朋了这些态度错误的理由，并且提出了正确的观点”，这与作者的做法符合。A和B只是指出了错误观点，并没有说明正确观点，所以不全面；作者并没有批评人们的错误观点，所以D不对。
单选题 Defense attorneys are vital to the judicial system because without them, it would be impossible to ______.
A. defend the civil rights of all Americans
B. present a truth to the jury that is unbiased and not manipulated
C. advocate on behalf of defendants who are obviously guilty
D. practice the adversarial trial system
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】这是一道细节题。文章最后一段指出：为了确保事实能够得到最公正、最没有偏见的表述和评价，美国就必须有这种对抗性的司法体制；如果没有辩护律师，这种制度的目标将无法实现，美国人拥有并且倡导的公民自由权也将丧失。这说明，D“实行对抗性的审判制度”，与文章的意思符合。A和B是没有对抗性审判制度的后果，与文章的意思不符；C明显不符合文章的意思。
单选题 According to the author, which of the following is NOT necessarily the case?
A. What is presented to the jury is unobstructed truth.
B. Without defense attorneys, innocent people would go to jail.
C. Attorneys will use all methods at their disposal to make the facts and laws favor their clients.
D. The adversarial process yields fair and unbiased presentation and evaluation of facts.
【正确答案】 D
【答案解析】这是一道细节题。文章第二段指出：尽自己所能以对自己的当事人有利的方式来诠释法律不仅是辩护律师的准则，也是公诉人的一贯做法；这样做的结果就是呈现给陪审团一个最清楚的事实真相，而不带任何人为操纵的痕迹。这说明，A和、 C与第二段的意思符合。第三段最后一句话证实B与文章的意思符合。只有D“美国司法体系的对抗性程序导致了对事实的公平、没有偏见的表述和评价”，将原文最后一段第一句话的意思绝对化了， 曲解了原文的意思，所以不对。