[C] that he reminds us the importance of some marginal-looking conflicts

[D] that he thinks the war conflict was indeed started due to geopolitical factors

3. Esdaile先生描述拿破仑战争的创新之处在于 _____。

[A] 他将该历史追溯至1799年拿破仑在法国上台之时

[B] 他用翔实且生动的材料描述了拿破仑的性格和历史

[C] 他提醒了我们一些看上去较为微小的冲突的重要性

[D] 他认为该战争实际上是由地理政治的因素引起的

答案：D　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：细节题。文章第三段指出，Esdaile先生让旧故事出新意的方式有三点，第一点是看起来不很重要的冲突如何演变为大的战争；第二点是拿破仑并不一定被击败了；第三点，也是首当其冲的一点是，这场战争并不是基于意识形态的，而是起源于地理政治的。这三个创新点在四个选项中只有D项提到了其中之一，因此是正确答案。

4. France's rivals fought against Napoleon despite chances for peace because _____.

[A] the political imbalance of Europe stimulated inevitable hatred and conflict between the countries and Napoleon

[B] they were alert to the possible aggression by Napoleon

[C] they attempted to settle with Napoleon but in vain

[D] Napoleon was too ambitious to be trusted by them

4. 尽管有多次讲和的机会，法国的敌人还是和拿破仑对抗，这是因为 _____。

[A] 欧洲的政治失衡必然导致拿破仑和这些国家之间的仇恨和冲突

[B] 他们害怕拿破仑可能会发动侵略

[C] 他们想与拿破仑讲和却没有成功

[D] 拿破仑过于野心勃勃，因此敌人们不信任他

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆☆☆

分析：细节题。第四段提到，法国的敌人中几乎没有一个是为了让法国改朝换代而进行战争的，本来可以有讲和的机会，但是战争却一直在继续，原因就是只要法国在拿破仑的统治下，那么别国就不知道法国什么时候才会停止侵略，这些国家自身随时都有可能遭到法国侵略的危险。因此，它们一直进行战争的原因还是害怕这种潜在的危险。因此，选项B最为符合题意。

5. According to the passage, which one of the following statements is NOT true of the Napoleonic wars?

[A] The wars would have been fought even without Napoleon.

[B] The wars were due to the emperor's aggression, egomania and lust for power.

[C] The wars lasted for so long time because France's rivals could not trust Napoleon.

[D] The wars were fought over the difference of the Europe's powers.

5. 根据本文，关于拿破仑战争，下列哪个陈述是错误的？

[A] 就算没有拿破仑，这场战争也会发生。

[B] 这场战争是因为拿破仑的野心、自大和对权力的贪欲才引起的。

[C] 战争持续了这么长时间，是因为法国的敌人不信任拿破仑。

[D] 战争是因为欧洲列强之间的不同而起的。

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：细节题。选项A，文章第五段提到，即使拿破仑不存在，欧洲的列强也会进行战争，只是因为他的存在而使得战争更为残酷、规模更大。选项B，文章第六段提到，战争是因为欧洲各国间的势力不均衡引起的。选项C，文章第六段提到了这一点。选项D，各国间的不同也就是欧洲的势力不均衡。因此，只有选项B的说法是错误的。





参考译文


关于战争的“为什么”，出版商们从严肃的历史学家那里获得的书远远不够。为什么会发生战争？为什么战争会一直延续？是什么使得和平不堪一击？历史只是寻找答案的一个途径。Charles Esdaile是利物浦大学的一名讲师，他是一位优秀的学者，因此并没有简单地对比现在和过去。但是，在他关于拿破仑战争的精妙叙述中，战争的“为什么”却贯穿始终。拿破仑战争是法国和欧洲其他国家进行的一场历时12年的战争，有200万名士兵在战争中捐躯。Esdaile先生在他一次广泛而细致的政治军事调查中告诉了我们他对这场战争起因的看法，这场战争的目的，并解释了为什么虽然看起来有好多次都有可能恢复和平，但战争还是持续了很长时间。“拿破仑战争”既不是战争编年史，又不是传记，它是对非凡历史的解释。

历史学家将拿破仑战争追溯到1803年，当时英国在短暂的“亚眠和平”后向法国宣战。Esdaile先生讲述了拿破仑如何于1799年上台，开始统治法国，而后又统治了整个欧洲。英国在1805年的特拉法加战争后获得了海上霸权。但是由于法国在陆上战争中打败了奥地利、普鲁士和俄罗斯，从而最终取得了陆上霸权。而拿破仑军队于1807年侵入西班牙后遇阻，1812年又在俄罗斯遇到灾祸，最终导致了滑铁卢战役的惨败。

Esdaile先生通过三种途径给予了这个旧故事新的诠释。他指出，看起来很微小的冲突，比如为了罗马尼亚的土地，瑞典、葡萄牙和加拿大之间发生的冲突最终引发了更大的战争，或者将本来可以结成的联盟弄得四分五裂。他认为，很难说是否彻底击垮了拿破仑。欧洲军队必须首先从自己的失败中汲取教训，而其统治者则需要联合起来。这些后来都实现了，但已经为时过晚。他强调，首先，这场战争并不是基于意识形态的，而是基于地理政治学的。这是一场关于权力均衡的战争，由于奥斯曼土耳其帝国的衰落、俄国和普鲁士的崛起以及英法对抗等因素而中断了一个世纪。

法国的敌人中几乎没有为了夺取巴黎政权而战的。很多时候，如果拿破仑愿意停战的话，他们也很可能就此停战。但是这些国家不相信拿破仑会停战，因此战争就一直持续下去。在Esdaile看来，拿破仑的两个劲敌——英国和俄国与之抵抗并不是因为他是革命者、共和党人或一个崛起王朝的领袖，而是因为只要他统治着法国，就无法预料法国什么时候才能停止扩张。

在这一点上，拿破仑的个性被列入Esdaile复杂的地理政治方程式中。Esdaile没有接受历史英雄理论，但他认为拿破仑战争理应享受如此盛名。即使没有拿破仑，欧洲列强也会因为彼此间的不同而发动战争，但是战争的规模和惨烈程度却在很大程度上取决于皇帝的“侵略性、自大狂和权力欲”。

Esdaile的这本书反映了近期学术广泛、多样的特点。但是他从未抛弃过地理政治这个概念。他相信，战争就是由于欧洲各国间的不平衡引起的，而战争一直延续是因为拿破仑不可信任。和平最终来临，直到后辈都忘记了战争的残酷。





TEXT THREE


It is, by general consent, the most important securities-litigation clash for a generation. A case now before the Supreme Court, Stoneridge v Scientific-Atlanta, is shaping up to be a key test of attitudes towards shareholder class actions. A decision in favour of aggrieved investors would greatly increase the number of companies on which trial lawyers could train their sights. A ruling the other way would be a crushing defeat for the plaintiff's bar. Adding to the suspense, the government bodies with an interest in the case cannot agree on a common position.

The case involves a cable company, Charter Communications, which used a transaction with two suppliers of set-top boxes to inflate its revenues. Shareholders sued not only the company but the vendors, too, claiming that they participated in the fraud, even though they may not have been aware of the misreporting. Led by the legendary Bill Lerach, plaintiff lawyers have lobbied ferociously for the principle of going after third parties, known as “scheme liability”.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is backing Mr. Lerach's lot, thanks to a change of heart by its Republican chairman, Christopher Cox, traditionally no friend of the plaintiff's bar. Mr. Cox urged the Department of Justice to fall in behind it, but this week it declined to do so. It has a month to decide whether to support the defendants or offer no opinion.

The Treasury is at odds with the SEC, too, fearing that a ruling in favour of investors would further damage American competitiveness. Many foreign firms that choose to list their shares elsewhere point to America's litigation lottery as the principal reason. Although filings of securities class actions have been falling since 2005, the overall value of settlements has continued to rise.

Bankers and accountants are watching just as closely as cable-box makers. In a similar case, Mr. Lerach's firm sued Enron's financial advisers on behalf of shareholders, claiming that they facilitated the book-keeping shenanigans at the now-defunct energy trader. He lost—though not before collecting billions from banks that settled early. He has lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court and wants the case joined with Stoneridge. Business is encouraged by its track record: a steady pruning of plaintiffs' rights since the 1970s. A number of its justices are thought to sympathise with the view that scheme liability is best left to the SEC, which has the power to pursue aiders and abettors under its Rule 10b-5.

Some lawyers in Washington even suggest that Mr. Cox only sided with investors because he was convinced that they had almost no chance of support from the Supreme Court. But with numerous fine legal points at issue, the outcome is uncertain. An unfavourable ruling would send a chill through boardrooms, and not only in America.

If suppliers and advisers can be dragged into class actions, it would no longer even be necessary to issue shares in the United States to incur securities liability, points out Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank. Any firm, anywhere, doing business with American companies would have to live with the risk that the transaction could later be portrayed as fraudulent or deceptive. And painting such pictures is what trial lawyers do best.

1. What will probably happen if the final decision is in favor of investors?

[A] More companies will decide to move to other countries for business.

[B] The government bodies will lose their popular trust.

[C] More companies will be involved in legal actions.

[D] American companies will lose most of its competitiveness.

2. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of “scheme liability”?

[A] The Department of Justice will decide whether to implement this principle in this case in a month.

[B] The principle is raised by the plaintiff's bar to settle the case.

[C] The principle has damaged the trust of foreign companies.

[D] The SEC was originally against using this principle in this case.

3. The Treasury is against the SEC's proposal because _____.

[A] the attitude of the Department of Justice is unclear

[B] it is afraid that this proposal may arouse securities class actions

[C] it holds the view that the scheme liability is unreasonable

[D] it thinks this proposal will further discourage foreign firms from listing shares in America

4. Mr. Cox changed his mind finally because _____.

[A] he is bribed by the investors to work in favor of them

[B] he sympathizes with the shareholders

[C] he disagrees with the Supreme Court's principles and attitudes

[D] he dedicated himself to the defense of American investors' right

5. Towards the actions of plaintiff's lawyers, the author's attitude can be said to be _____.

[A] negative

[B] positive

[C] indifferent

[D] biased





文章剖析


这篇文章讲述了美国一起安全诉讼案的情况。第一段讲述这一诉讼案目前的两种裁决后果；第二段讲述了提起诉讼的原因以及目前律师团提出的建议；第三段和第四段讲述美国一些国家部门对如何解决该案件的提议的态度；第五段讲述律师之前经历过的案件；第六段讲述目前案件悬而未决的情况；第七段讲述如果案件的发展进一步深化将会带来的后果。





词汇注释


shape up 发展

aggrieved adj. 权利受到不法侵害的

plaintiff n. 原告

bar n. 律师团

fall in 同意

lottery n. 抓阄法

file v. ［法律］（把）（投诉信、法律案件、正式文件等）登记在案；正式提出

shenanigan n. 诡计，恶作剧

defunct adj. 死了的；不存在的

pruning n. 修剪

abettor n. 教唆犯





难句突破


① Shareholders sued not only the company but the vendors, too, claiming that they participated in the fraud, even though they may not have been aware of the misreporting.

主体句式：Shareholders sued not only the company but the vendors, too...

结构分析：这是一个复合句，现在分词结构claiming...作句子的伴随状语，后面的even though...作伴随状语中的宾语从句的条件状语。

句子译文：股东们不仅起诉了这家公司，而且也起诉了供应商，称他们参与了诈骗行为，虽然他们可能并没有意识到那些误报。

② If suppliers and advisers can be dragged into class actions, it would no longer even be necessary to issue shares in the United States to incur securities liability, points out Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank.

主体句式：..., points out Peter Wallison...

结构分析：这是一个复合句，主语后置，a think-tank是前面the American Enterprise Institute的同位语；主体句式前面的部分都是宾语从句，该宾语从句为一个带有条件状语从句的复杂句。

句子译文：美国的智囊机构美国企业协会的Peter Wallison指出，如果供应商和顾问也被卷入共同起诉中，那就不再需要在美国发行股票来招致证券债务。





题目分析


1. What will probably happen if the final decision is in favor of investors?

[A] More companies will decide to move to other countries for business.

[B] The government bodies will lose their popular trust.

[C] More companies will be involved in legal actions.

[D] American companies will lose most of its com-petitiveness.

1. 如果最后的裁决有利于投资者，以下哪种情况会发生？

[A] 大多数公司会决定搬到其他国家做生意。

[B] 政府团体会失去公众的信任。

[C] 会有更多的公司被卷入诉讼。

[D] 美国公司会丧失其大部分的竞争力。

答案：C　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：推理题。第一段提到，如果最终的裁决有利于投资者的话，辩护律师就会关注更多的公司了。言外之意就是，会有更多的公司被卷入诉讼中。文章第四段也指出，如果投资者胜诉，那么会使得美国的竞争力下降。因此，选项C符合题意。

2. Which one of the following statements is NOT true of “scheme liability”?

[A] The Department of Justice will decide whether to implement this principle in this case in a month.

[B] The principle is raised by the plaintiff's bar to settle the case.

[C] The principle has damaged the trust of foreign companies.

[D] The SEC was originally against using this principle in this case.

2. 关于“方案责任”，下列哪一项陈述是错误的？

[A] 司法部将在一个月内决定是否在本案中实施该原则。

[B] 该原则是由原告律师团提出，以解决该案件的。

[C] 该原则已经损害了外国公司的信任。

[D] 证券与货币兑换委员会最初是反对将该原则用于该案件的。

答案：A　难度系数：☆☆

分析：推理题。选项A，第三段提到，司法部已经拒绝施行这项原则，并且将在一个月内决定是否支持被告。选项B，第一段提到，该原则是由原告律师团提出的。选项C，第四段提到，许多外国公司选择在其他国家上市，就是因为该原则，因此可以推断，该原则损害了外国公司的信任。选项D，第三段提到，多亏Christopher Cox改变了主意，最终该委员会才同意了这个提议，因此可以推断，最初他们是持反对态度的。所以，正确答案为A。

3. The Treasury is against the SEC's proposal because _____.

[A] the attitude of the Department of Justice is unclear

[B] it is afraid that this proposal may arouse securities class actions

[C] it holds the view that the scheme liability is unrea-sonable

[D] it thinks this proposal will further discourage foreign firms from listing shares in America

3. 财政部反对证券与货币兑换委员会的提议，是因为 _____。

[A] 司法部的态度不明朗

[B] 它害怕该提议会引起证券行业共同起诉

[C] 它认为该原则是不合理的

[D] 它认为该原则会进一步阻碍外国公司在美国上市

答案：D　难度系数：☆☆☆☆

分析：细节题。文章第四段提到，财政部担心，如果裁决有利于投资者，就会进一步削弱美国的竞争力，因为许多外国公司选择了到别的国家上市就是因为这个原则。因此，主要原因还是担心该原则会进一步阻碍外国公司在美国上市，从而损害美国的竞争力。所以，选项D为正确答案。

4. Mr. Cox changed his mind finally because _____.

[A] he is bribed by the investors to work in favor of them

[B] he sympathizes with the shareholders

[C] he disagrees with the Supreme Court's principle and attitudes

[D] he dedicated himself to the defense of the American investor's rights

4. Cox先生最终改变了主意，是因为 _____。

[A] 他接受了投资者们的贿赂来帮助他们

[B] 他同情那些股东

[C] 他不同意最高法院的原则和态度

[D] 他致力于对美国投资者权利的保护

答案：B　难度系数：☆☆☆

分析：细节题。文章第三段提到，Cox先生不是原告律师团任何人的朋友；而第五段又提到，华盛顿的一些律师暗示，Cox先生只站在投资者一边，是因为感觉最高法院不可能支持他们。因此，可以看出他这样做是出于对这些投资者的同情。答案为选项B。

5. Towards the actions of plaintiff's lawyers, the author's attitude can be said to be _____.

[A] negative

[B] positive

[C] indifferent

[D] biased

5. 对于原告律师团的行为，作者的态度可以说是 _____。

[A] 否定的

[B] 肯定的

[C] 不感兴趣的

[D] 有偏见的

答案：A　难度系数：☆

分析：态度题。文章的前半部分，作者都是以一种非常客观的态度来叙述的，但是在文章最后一段，作者提到，任何公司要和美国公司做生意，都必须面临有可能被认为存在欺诈行为的危险，而律师向来都是描黑的能手。由此可以看出，作者对律师还是持否定态度的。因此，答案为A。





参考译文


人们普遍认为，本案是这一时代最大的一起证券诉讼冲突。现在最高法院正在审理的一个案子——Stoneridge v Scientific Atlanta发展成为试探共同起诉股东的重要个案。如果决议有利于那些权利受到不法侵害的投资者，那么就会有更多的公司找律师来起诉。而不利于投资者的裁决对于原告律师团则会是一个致命的打击。除了这个悬念之外，关心该案件的政府机构也不能达成一致意见。

该案件涉及一个电报公司——Charter Communications，该公司利用与两个机顶盒供应商进行交易来增加其收入。股东们不仅起诉了这家公司，而且也起诉了供应商，称他们参与了诈骗行为，虽然他们可能并没有意识到那些误报。以富有传奇色彩的Bill Lerach为首的原告律师团强烈要求施行寻找第三方的原则，即“方案责任”。

证券与货币兑换委员会赞成Lerach先生抓阄的建议，这主要是因为该委员会的共和党主席Christopher Cox改变了主意，此人与原告律师团没有任何关系。Cox先生敦促司法部同意该提议，但是这周司法部却予以拒绝。司法部有一个月的时间来决定，是支持被告还是不提供任何意见。

财政部也和证券与货币兑换委员会有分歧，财政部担心，如果裁决有利于投资者，会进一步削弱美国的竞争力。很多国外的公司选择在其他地方上市，其主要原因是美国很多诉讼案件的结果都是无法保证的。尽管证券行业共同起诉的案件自2005年以来一直在减少，裁决所牵涉的整体价值却一直在上升。

和电报盒制造商一样，银行家和会计一直在密切关注这起案件。之前也有一起相似的案件，Lerach先生的公司代表股东们起诉了Enron公司的金融顾问，称他们促成了现已不存在的能源商的虚假交易账目。Lerach败诉，虽然之前因裁决从银行取到了几十亿美元。他向最高法院提出了上诉，希望这个案件可以加入Stoneridge中。纪录可以刺激生意，这是自20世纪70年代起对原告权利逐步修改的成果。人们认为，一些法官同意“方案责任”最好交由证券与货币兑换委员会来负责的观点，该委员会有权根据其《10b-5法规》来追踪资助人和教唆者。

华盛顿的一些律师甚至暗示，Cox先生只站在投资者一边，因为他相信，投资者们几乎不可能从最高法院获得任何支持。但是由于有太多的法律事项都不能达成一致，结果还是个未知数。不利的裁决会让股东们的会议室充满寒意，而且这不仅仅限于美国。