Question

On the 36th day after they had voted, Americans finally learned Wednesday who would be their next president: Governor George W. Bush of Texas.

Vice President Al Gore, his last realistic avenue for legal challenge closed by a U. S. Supreme Court decision late Tuesday, planned to end the contest formally in a televised evening speech of perhaps 10 minutes, advisers said.

They said that Senator Joseph Lieberman, his vice presidential running mate, would first make brief comments. The men would speak from a ceremonial chamber of the Old Executive office Building, to the west of the White House.

The dozens of political workers and lawyers who had helped lead Mr. Gore’s unprecedented fight to claw a come-from-behind electoral victory in the pivotal state of Florida were thanked Wednesday and asked to stand down.

“The vice president has directed the recount committee to suspend activities,” William Daley, the Gore campaign chairman, said in a written statement.

Mr. Gore authorized that statement after meeting with his wife, Tipper, and with top advisers including Mr. Daley.

He was expected to telephone Mr. Bush during the day. The Bush campaign kept a low profile and moved gingerly, as if to leave space for Mr. Gore to contemplate his next steps.

Yet, at the end of a trying and tumultuous process that had focused world attention on sleepless vote counters across Florida, and on courtrooms form Miami to Tallahassee to Atlanta to Washington the Texas governor was set to become the 43d U. S. president.

The news of Mr. Gore’s plans followed the longest and most rancorous dispute over a U. S. presidential election in more than a century, one certain to leave scars in a badly divided country.

It was a bitter ending for Mr. Gore, who had outpolled Mr. Bush nationwide by some 300000 votes, but, without Florida, fell short in the Electoral College by 271votes to 267—the narrowest Electoral College victory since the turbulent election of 1876.

Mr. Gore was said to be distressed by what he and many Democratic activists felt was a partisan decision from the nation’s highest court.

The 5-to –4 decision of the Supreme Court held, in essence, that while a vote recount in Florida could be conducted in legal and constitutional fashion, as Mr. Gore had sought, this could not be done by the Dec. 12 deadline for states to select their presidential electors.

James Baker 3rd, the former secretary of state who represented Mr. Bush in the Florida dispute, issued a short statement after the U. S. high court ruling, saying that the governor was “very pleased and gratified.”

Mr. Bush was planning a nationwide speech aimed at trying to begin to heal the country’s deep, aching and varied divisions. He then was expected to meet with congressional leaders, including Democrats. Dick Cheney, Mr. Bush’s ruing mate, was meeting with congressmen Wednesday in Washington.

When Mr. Bush, who is 54, is sworn into office on Jan.20, he will be only the second son of  a president to follow his father to the White House, after John Adams and John Quincy Adams in the early 19th century.

Mr. Gore, in his speech, was expected to thank his supporters, defend his hive-week battle as an effort to ensure, as a matter of principle, that every vote be counted, and call for the nation to join behind the new president. He was described by an aide as “resolved and resigned.”

While some constitutional experts had said they believed states could present electors as late as Dec. 18, the U. S. high court made clear that it saw no such leeway.

The U.S. high court sent back “for revision” to the Florida court its order allowing recounts but made clear that for all practical purposes the election was over.

In its unsigned main opinion, the court declared, “The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter.”

That decision, by a court fractured along philosophical lines, left one liberal justice charging that the high court’s proceedings bore a political taint.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an angry dissent:” Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the law.”

But at the end of five seemingly endless weeks, during which the physical, legal and constitutional machines of the U. S. election were pressed and sorely tested in ways unseen in more than a century, the system finally produced a result, and one most Americans appeared to be willing at lease provisionally to support.

The Bush team welcomed the news with an outward show of restraint and aplomb. The governor’s hopes had risen and fallen so many times since Election night, and the legal warriors of each side suffered through so many dramatic reversals, that there was little energy left for celebration.

The main idea of this passage is

[A]. Bush’s victory in presidential election bore a political taint.

[B]. The process of the American presidential election.

[C]. The Supreme Court plays a very important part in the presidential election.

[D]. Gore is distressed.

     What does the sentence “as if to leave space for Mr. Gore to contemplate his next step” mean

[A]. Bush hopes Gore to join his administration.

[B]. Bush hopes Gore to concede defeat and to support him.

[C]. Bush hopes Gore to congraduate him.

[D]. Bush hopes Gore go on fighting with him.

     Why couldn’t Mr. Gore win the presidential election after he outpolled Mr. Bush in the popular vote? Because

[A]. the American president is decided by the supreme court’s decision.

[B]. people can’t directly elect their president.

[C]. the American president is elected by a slate of presidential electors.

[D]. the people of each state support Mr. Bush.

     What was the result of the 5—4 decision of the supreme court?

[A]. It was in fact for the vote recount.

[B]. It had nothing to do with the presidential election.

[C]. It decided the fate of the winner.

[D]. It was in essence against the vote recount.

     What did the “turbulent election of 1876” imply?

[A]. The process of presidential election of 2000 was the same as that.

[B]. There were great similarities between the two presidential elections (2000 and 1876).

[C]. It was compared to presidential election of 2000.

[D]. It was given an example.

Answer 1

【小題1】A

【小題2】B

【小題3】C

【小題4】D

【小題5】B

解析:

【小題1】     A. 布什在總統選舉中獲勝沾上了政治污點。整篇文章環繞這一點而寫。文章一開始就寫戈爾在高等法院裁決下退出競選，再寫布什得勝后的低調行動表示對戈爾的期望。仁厚點出271——276選舉團票布什的險勝是和全國最高法院的欺詐性裁決有關，這令戈爾痛心疾首，令布什等感恩戴德。最后集中寫了高等法院司法程序沾上了政治污點，以及當選之布什的后果——大多數美國人似乎暫時會支持。這一切說明布什勝勝不武，而戈爾卻是雖敗尤勝。

B. 美國總統選舉過程，文章過程的焦點在布什獲勝之因，不單單是過程，故B. 項不對。

C. 高等法院在總統選舉中起著重要的作用。其作用是欺詐性裁決，偏袒布什獲勝，是政治污點，反映了布什的手段。      D. 戈爾很難受，這是事實，但不是中心思想。

【小題2】     B. 布什希望戈爾（能退一步）承認失敗，并支持他，而戈爾確實是也這樣做了。所以他的助手稱戈爾為“resolved and resigned.” 堅決而又順從天命的人。至少在他的演講中號召人們追隨新總統。

A. 布什希望戈爾參與他的政府。      C. 布什希望戈爾祝賀他。     D. 布什希望戈爾繼續和他斗下去。

【小題3】     C. 美國的總統由選舉團提名選舉產生。見難句譯注5和6。

A. 美國總統由高等法院裁決。        B. 人民不能直接選舉總統。這只是第一步的原因，主要原因在C.        D. 各州人民支持布什。

【小題4】     D. 其結果實質上就是反對重新計票。這在第十二段闡述得很清楚：高等法院5比4之裁決實質上就是重新計票在12月12日州選舉總統選舉團的最后一天之前是不能進行的，而戈爾曾認為弗羅里達州可以法律和憲法的形式重新計票。總統選舉團一產生。總統由選舉團提名選舉產生，那么重新計票與否對總統選舉實際上是毫無作用，所以說5比4裁決12月12日之前……實質上就是反對重新計票。

A. 其結果實際上是支持重新計票。不對。        B. 其結果和總統選舉毫無關系，不對，關系很大，見D項注釋。        C. 其結果決定勝者的命運。

【小題5】     B. 它隱射2000年的總統選舉和1876年的總統選舉兩者之間有著很大的相似之處。見難句譯注6，海因斯認為輸了，正準備放棄，誰知涉嫌欺騙行為，對有爭議的州進行重新計票。結果是海因斯以一票之差險勝。重新計票以及險勝都和2000年總統選舉相似，其它方面，如以為輸而沒有輸，重新計票州多而且起到作用等……，都和2000年選舉不同，所以只能選B項，A項完全一樣是錯誤的。

A. 兩者選舉總統過程一個樣。       C. 把1876年總統選舉比作2000年的總統選舉。      D. 作為例子給出。 這里沒有說明。