2013考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題精析

內(nèi)容概要

　　從一九九六年至今，文都的研究生考試命題研究氛圍愈加濃厚。發(fā)展到今天，精品圖書(shū)層出不窮、一版再版。不斷充實(shí)的每年春、秋兩季圖書(shū)征訂目錄，不僅為選擇文都課程的莘莘學(xué)子獲得高質(zhì)量的學(xué)習(xí)成果提供了堅(jiān)實(shí)的平臺(tái)，而且在考研學(xué)子中樹(shù)立了良好的口碑。我們?cè)谛老仓嗖桓矣薪z毫懈怠，文都考研命題研究中心經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)期的市場(chǎng)調(diào)查、精心的策劃，特推出這本《考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題精析——命題剖析與復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)》?！笆谌艘贼~(yú)不如授人以漁”，文都獨(dú)家授課名師結(jié)合多年教學(xué)經(jīng)驗(yàn)，在深入研究完形填空、閱讀、閱讀新題型、翻譯和寫(xiě)作命題規(guī)律的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行權(quán)威總結(jié)，提供科學(xué)的解題指導(dǎo)方法，對(duì)歷年真題的每一道題目進(jìn)行精準(zhǔn)到位的解析。并且對(duì)全國(guó)得分偏低的題目進(jìn)行特別解析和點(diǎn)撥，指導(dǎo)考生攻破難關(guān)從而取得考研英語(yǔ)科目的高分。
　　市場(chǎng)上已有不少考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題解析方面的圖書(shū)，其中也不乏嚴(yán)肅認(rèn)真、有某種獨(dú)到之處的作品，但很遺憾的是大多匆匆編成，錯(cuò)誤太多，避重就輕，文字口語(yǔ)化，遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不到研究生考試這種高難度的水平考試應(yīng)有的深度和嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)。
　　這本《考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題精析——命題剖析與復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)》在編寫(xiě)的過(guò)程中博采眾長(zhǎng)，力求為廣大考研學(xué)子節(jié)省最寶貴的備考時(shí)間，提供最有力的幫助。日復(fù)一日，字斟句酌，力圖做到寥寥數(shù)語(yǔ)，精準(zhǔn)到位，使備考同學(xué)茅塞頓開(kāi)、舉一反三。所有努力體現(xiàn)在這本書(shū)的以下特點(diǎn)中。

書(shū)籍目錄

2012年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2012年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2011年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2011年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2010年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2010年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2009年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2009年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2008年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2008年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2007年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2007年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2006年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2006年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2005年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2005年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2004年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2004年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
2003年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題
2003年全國(guó)碩士研究生入學(xué)考試英語(yǔ)試題答案與解析
附錄：常用前綴和后綴

章節(jié)摘錄

版權(quán)頁(yè)：   Text 4 On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Mondaya modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states. In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held the congress had deliberately "occupied the field" and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers. However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federalstate immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues. Two of the three objecting Justice-Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas-agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the alien and Sedition Acts. The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as "a shocking assertion of federal executive power". The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state Laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with. Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

編輯推薦

《2014考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題精析:命題剖析與復(fù)習(xí)指導(dǎo)(英語(yǔ)1)》編輯推薦：定位解析十年考試真題，全面指導(dǎo)考研戰(zhàn)略戰(zhàn)。

圖書(shū)封面

評(píng)論、評(píng)分、閱讀與下載

---

    2013考研英語(yǔ)歷年真題精析 PDF格式下載

---