2013考研英語一閱讀？answer to 1.(對刺激)起反應，對…有反應；響應；產生做用(或效果):The cow answered to its cowboy's touch.牛對牛仔的輕擊做出了反應。2.對(…的稱呼)做出反應；名叫，叫做：The child answers only to its nickname.你只有叫那孩子的外號，他才答應。3.負有責任，對…負責，那么，2013考研英語一閱讀？一起來了解一下吧。
Text 4
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 Aministration.But on the more important matter of the Constitution,the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the federal government and the states.
An arizona.United States,the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enfour federal immigrations law.The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Anturalization" and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial.Arizona had attempted to fashion state police that ran 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 tures on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued tha 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 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.
36. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they
[A] deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers.
[B] disturbed the power balance between different states.
[C] overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.
[D] contradicted both the federal and state policies.
37. On which of the following did the Justices agree,according to Paragraph4?
[A] Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’information.
[B] States’ independence from federal immigration law.
[C] States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
[D] Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.
38. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts
[A] violated the Constitution.
[B] undermined the states’ interests.
[C] supported the federal statute.
[D] stood in favor of the states.
39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement
[A] outweighs that held by the states.
[B] is dependent on the states’ support.
[C] is established by federal statutes.
[D] rarely goes against state laws.
40. What can be learned from the last paragraph?
[A] Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.
[B] Justices intended to check the power of the Administrstion.
[C] Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.
[D] The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.
【INO老師回答】
書上給的翻譯不妥.此題出處：2013年考研英語（一）閱讀理解A 的文章.
建議譯為：實際上,白宮聲稱可以使任何那些它不贊同的州立法律都變得不合法.
【句子結構分析詳解】In effect 實際上（固定短語）the White House 主句主語claimed 謂語動詞（時態：一般過去時）that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with. than引導的賓語從句賓語從句中：代詞it做主語,代替的是the White House白宮could 情態動詞,表委婉語氣,一般譯為“可以”,后加動詞原形invalidate 賓語從句中的謂語動詞,譯為“使不合法”any otherwise any在此處為形容詞,表“任何”； otherwise 在此處相當于other,代詞,表“其他的”,在本句中any otherwise=any other,表“任何其他的”legitimate state law 賓語從句中的賓語,譯為“州立法律”that it disagrees with. 后置定語從句修飾 legitimate state law ,that在定語從句中充 當賓語,代指 legitimate state law,而在此定語從句中,主語是it,謂語動詞 是disagrees with.that引導的后置定語從句的作用是：進一步說明什么樣的州立法 律,什么樣的呢?就是it disagrees with 白宮不贊同的州立法律,代詞it指代the White House 白宮.
如還有問題,請追問,希望對你有所幫助.,9,any otherwise 否則任何
我覺得就是翻譯中的否決,1,聯系這篇文章,1,any 和 otherwise 不是連用的，any用來修飾state law，otherwise的意思是不同的或不相符的，otherwise legitimate 意思是不正當，不合法的， 白宮聲稱它可以廢除任何它不贊同的州法， 其實就是你上面的 白宮宣稱，如果他不同意州合法制定的法律條文，那它就可以否決這些條文...,0,一個英語句子不太懂
In effect,the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it
disagrees with.
這句話書上給的翻譯是：實際上,白宮宣稱,如果他不同意州合法制定的法律條文,那它就可以否決這些條文
這句話中 any otherwise 應該如何理解呢?在給的這個翻譯中哪點體現的?
你說的這個應該是2013年的英語一的第二篇閱讀：
Text 2
An old saying has it that half of all advertising budgets are wasted-the trouble is, no one knows which half . In the internet age, at least in theory ,this fraction can be much reduced . By watching what people search for, click on and say online, companies can aim “behavioural” ads at those most likely to buy.
In the past couple of weeks a quarrel has illustrated the value to advertisers of such fine-grained information: Should advertisers assume that people are happy to be tracked and sent behavioural ads? Or should they have explicit permission?
In December 2010 America's Federal Trade Cornmission (FTC) proposed adding a "do not track "(DNT) option to internet browsers ,so that users could tell adwertisers that they did not want to be followed .Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's Safari both offer DNT ;Google's Chrome is due to do so this year. In February the FTC and Digltal Adwertising Alliance (DAA) agreed that the industry would get cracking on responging to DNT requests.
On May 31st Microsoft Set off the row: It said that Internet Explorer 10,the version due to appear windows 8, would have DNT as a default.
It is not yet clear how advertisers will respond. Geting a DNT signal does not oblige anyone to stop tracking, although some companies have promised to do so. Unable to tell whether someone really objects to behavioural ads or whether they are sticking with Microsoft’s default, some may ignore a DNT signal and press on anyway.
Also unclear is why Microsoft has gone it alone. Atter all, it has an ad business too, which it says will comply with DNT requests, though it is still working out how. If it is trying to upset Google, which relies almost wholly on default will become the norm. DNT does not seem an obviously huge selling point for windows 8-though the firm has compared some of its other products favourably with Google's on that count before. Brendon Lynch, Microsoft's chief privacy officer, bloggde:"we believe consumers should have more control." Could it really be that simple?
對 先行詞是surprising amount 后面是that引導的定語從句we can say with considerable assurance.
隱含的完整距離就是we can say a surprising amount with considerable assurance
answer to
1.
(對刺激)起反應，對…有反應；響應；產生做用(或效果):
The cow answered to its cowboy's touch.
牛對牛仔的輕擊做出了反應。
2.
對(…的稱呼)做出反應；名叫，叫做：
The child answers only to its nickname.
你只有叫那孩子的外號，他才答應。
3.
負有責任，對…負責，為…的后果負責，須做交代，對…負責做出解釋，向…負責說明：
The directors had to answer to the stock holders for loss.
該損失董事們要向股東做出交代。
4.
與(描述等)相符，和…相合；像：
He answers to the description.
他與描述相符。
5.
適合于，符合：
That answers precisely to our need.
那正符合我們的需要。
6.
(飛機、船、汽車等)對…做出反應；聽從(使喚、控制)，服從：
The sails are not answering to our pull on the ropes.
我們拉繩風帆不聽使喚。
以上就是2013考研英語一閱讀的全部內容，這個句子主干部分為people will only start shopping moe sustainabl，從句為when 引導的條件狀語從句，該從句為省略句，not to 后省略了主句中的shop more substainably. can't afford not to 兩個not ，雙重否定。翻譯為：只有當人們支付不起不能消費的的時候，才會進行可持續消費。
