正确答案: C

overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.

题目：根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a 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 federal-state 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 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. {TS}Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章细节信息的把握能力选项分析：根据题干中的关键词 three provisions of Arizona定位到文中第二段。第一句提到Arizona计划的三个部分被推翻是让州和地方警察实施联邦移民[微博]法律。这句话没有相对应选项，所以看到后面一句，意思是宪法的规则是毋庸置疑的，它认为华盛顿本身就有建立一个统一的自然化的规则的权力，而且认为联邦法律优先于州法律。所以被推翻就是因为它超越了联邦移民法的权威。此题也可在第三段第二句话，因为它提到on the overturned provision, 意思是大部分人认为议会故意占据了领地，Arizona因此侵犯了联邦的享有特权的权力。所以，答案是B

查看原题 查看所有试题

学习资料的答案和解析：

[多选题]作家史铁生在《奶奶的星星》中讲道，奶奶告诉他的故事与通常的说法不同：一般人说，地上死一个人，天上就熄灭了一颗星星；而奶奶说，地上死一个人，天上又多了一个星星，人死了就会升到天空，变成星星给走夜道的人照个亮了。于是他“慢慢相信，每一个活过的人，都能给后人的路途上添些光亮，也许是一颗巨星，也许是一把火炬，也许只是一支含泪的烛光……”这对我们理解个人在社会历史的作用的启示有

历史是无数个人相互作用的合力的结果

每个人对社会发展都有或大或小的作用

解析：AD（历史是无数个人相互作用的合理的结果；每个人对社会法治都有或大或小的作用）

[单选题]一切从实际出发、理论联系实际、实事求是的马克思主义思想路线，在全党范围确立了起来是在

延安整风

[多选题]抗日民主政府在工作人员分配上实行“三三制”原则。即共产党员、非党的左派进步分子和不左不右的中间派各占1／3。这是抗日民主政府在政权建设方面的一个重要内容-对“三三制”政权性质的表述，正确的有

是共产党领导的抗日民族统一战线性质的政权

是一切赞成抗日又赞成民主的人们的政权

是几个革命阶级联合起来对于汉奸和反动派的民主专政

解析：为了容纳各方面的代表，团结一切赞成抗日又赞成民主的各阶级、阶层，扩大统一战线的力量，抗日民主政府在工作人员分配上实行“三三制”原则。根据地的抗日民主政权，是共产党领导的抗IEl民族统一战线性质的政权，它以工农联盟为基础，是共产党领导的一切赞成抗日又赞成民主的人们的政权，是几个革命阶级联合起来的政权。抗日民主政权普遍采取民主集中制，各级抗日民主政权机构的领导人都经过人民选举产生。BCD正确，A是新民主主义社会的政权性质，不符题意。

[单选题]What can be learned from the last paragraph?

根据以下资料，回答下面的题目。On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday-a 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 federal-state 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 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. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion.

解析：考点分析：此题考查考生对文章主旨的把握能力选项分析：根据前三段得出文章的主旨和移民法律有关，只有A和D提到，答案在其中之一。而A是说通常被议会决定，和本段第三段句话内容冲突。所以答案是D。

[单选题]根据以下资料，回答{TSE}题。The social sciences are flourishing.As of 2005,there were almost half a million professional social scientists from all fields in the world, working both inside and outside academia. According to the World Social Science Report 2010,the number of social-science students worldwide has swollen by about 11% every year since 2000.Yet this enormous resource in not contributing enough to today’s global challenges including climate change, security,sustainable development and health.(41)______Humanity has the necessary agro-technological tools to eradicate hunger , from genetically engineered crops to arificial fertilizers . Here , too, the problems are social: the organization and distribution of food, wealth and prosperity.(42)____This is a shame—the community should be grasping the opportunity to raise its influence in the real world. To paraphrase the great social scientist Joseph Schumpeter:there is no radical innovation without creative destruction .Today ,the social sciences are largely focused on disciplinary problems and internal scholarly debates,rather than on topics with external impact.Analyses reveal that the number of papers including the keywords “environmental changed” or “climate change” have increased rapidly since 2004,(43)____ When social scientists do tackle practical issues ,their scope is often local:Belgium is interested mainly in the effects of poverty on Belgium for example .And whether the community’s work contributes much to an overall accumulation of knowledge is doubtful. The problem is not necessarily the amount of available funding (44)____this is an adequate amount so long as it is aimed in the right direction. Social scientists who complain about a lack of funding should not expect more in today’s economic climate.The trick is to direct these funds better.The European Union Framework funding programs have long had a category specifically targeted at social scientists.This year,it was proposed that system be changed:Horizon 2020,a new program to be enacted in 2014,would not have such a category ,This has resulted in protests from social scientists.But the intention is not to neglect social science ; rather ,the complete opposite.(45)____That should createmore collaborative endeavors and help to develop projects aimed directly at solving global problems. {TS}请在第____处填上正确选项。[A] It could be that we are evolving two communities of social scientists:one that is discipline-oriented and publishing in highly specialized journals,and one that is problem-oriented and publishing elsewhere,such as policy briefs.[B] However,the numbers are still small:in 2010,about 1,600 of the100,000 social-sciences papers published globally included one of theseKeywords.[C] the idea is to force social to integrate their work with other categories, including health and demographic change food security, marine research and the bio

解析：文章来源于Luk Van Langenhon在《自然》杂志中关于对社会科学研究的资金未来取向，他的论据从社会科学的投资收益率角度，建议我们应该资助解决在各学科大环境下的大问题的研究。[考点分析] 复现结构+代词纸带关系定位[选项分析] 此题为段中空，因此此空所填内容是由其上下文决定的。上句中Yet this enormous resource 没有对如今的global challenges做出足够的贡献，这些global challenges 包括 climate change, security, sustainable development and health. E选项中These issues指代上句中的各种global challenges，并且all have root causes in human behavior解释了为什么说this enormous resource in not contributing enough to today’s global challenges。因此E 选项为正确答案。