考研真题:考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析

考研真题:考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析已公布，真题中的知识点往往会复现，即使题目形式发生变化，考察的内容也换汤不换药。以下内容分享给同学们，希望可以帮到大家。

考研真题:考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析

Text 2

Just how much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the possessions of suspects at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state argues, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.

The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone—a vast storehouse of digital information—is similar to, say, going through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, has made that exploration so much the easier.

Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly burdensome for authorities to obtain a warrant to search

through phone contents. They could still invalidate Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, urgent circumstances, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while waiting for a warrant. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more freedom.

But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

21. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to

[A] search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.

[B] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.

[C] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.

[D] prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

22. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

[A] tolerance. [B] indifference. [C] disapproval. [D] cautiousness.

23. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to

[A] getting into one’s residence. [B] handling one’s historical records.

[C] scanning one’s correspondences. [D] going through one’s wallet.

24. In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that

[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.

[B] the court is giving police less room for action.

[C] phones are used to store sensitive information.

[D] citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected.

25. Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that

[A] the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.

[B] new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.

[C] California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution.

[D] principles of the Constitution should never be altered.

Text 2

【答案解析】

26.C 这是一道事实细节题，根据题干关键词 The Supreme Court 回文定位到第一段的第二句话，“The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search for the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest”,一一比对选项， 原文中的“police can search for the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant” 与选项 C “check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized”是同义替换，其他选项均是无关选项。

27.A 本题是观点态度题，考察作者的态度。根据题干关键词“California’s argument”，可以定位到文章第四段第一句“They should start by discarding California’s lame argument…”。由第四段第一句话中的“discard(抛弃)”和“lame(没有说服力的)”可以看出作者对于 California’s argument 是不支持的态度，因此选 A。

28.A 根据题干关键词 the author believes 和“exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to” 可回文定位到文章第四段第三句“But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home”，选项 A 语义与之一致，其中，getting into 与 entering 对应，one’s residence 与his or her home 对应，故 A 选项为正确答案。

29.C 根据题干信息 In paragraphs 5 and 6 定位第 5 段第一句话“Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy.及第 6 段最后一句话，...and they could take reasonable measures to ，可推知作者的顾虑，因此答案为 C。

30.A 这是一道例证题，根据题干关键词 Orin Kerr 可以回文定位到文章最后一段。作者引用Orin Kerr 这个人的比较是为了说明相关的论点。分析最后一段结构可知，最后一段的第三句和第四句都是在阐述该例子本身，所以相关论点应该往前面找，即是第二句话，“New， disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protection”,选项 A 与之同义替换，其中，be implemented 和 applications 对应，novel 和 flexibly 对应。

【全文翻译】

宪法到底在多大程度上保护你的数字数据?最高法院将要讨论：在没有搜查令的情况下， 警方在逮捕过程中是否可以搜查嫌疑人身上或身旁手机的内容。

加州已经请求大法官们不要做出全面性裁定，尤其是不要破坏执法当局在实施逮捕时可搜查嫌疑人财务这一既有规定。该州认为，法官很难评估快速变化的新技术可能带来的影响。

如果听从加州的建议，最高法院是谦虚得不考虑后果。现在已经有足够多的影响可以辨 别，甚至很明显，因此法官们能够也应当向警方、律师以及被告提供更新的指导原则。

他们应该首先摒弃加州拙劣的观点：翻看智能手机内容——一个庞大的数字信息库—— 相当于翻查嫌疑人的钱包。最高法院已经裁定，警方无证搜查被捕人的钱包或钱袋并不违反 宪法第四修正案。但是查看一个人的智能手机更像是进入他或者她的家。智能手机里可能存有被捕者的阅读记录、财务记录、病史记录以及近期通信往来的详细记录。与此同时，“云计算”的发展已经使那种搜查大为容易。

美国人应当采取措施保护他们的数字隐私。但是把敏感信息保存在这些设备上正日渐成 为正常生活的一种需求。不过公民有权要求私人文件保持不公开以及宪法禁止无理搜查的保 护。

申明原则并不能减轻界限划定的挑战，这是常有的事。很多情况下，当局获得搜查令再搜查手机信息也不会太麻烦。他们还可以在面临严峻、紧急情况时越过第四修正案的保护条例;他们也可以在等待搜查令时采取合理措施以保证手机数据不被删除或更改。尽管如此， 最高法院或许还想要为警方引证有权行使更多自主行为的情形留下空间。

但是法官们不应全盘接受加州的观点。新的破坏性技术有时需要宪法保护范围的新颖应 用。法学教授 Orin Kerr，把 21 世纪数字信息爆炸及其可获取性与 20 世纪汽车确立为生活必需相较;当时法官们不得不为小轿车这一新兴私人领域明确新规;现在他们也必须解决第四 修正案如何适用于数字信息的问题。

具体信息请考生关注院校官网等发布的官方消息。

考研真题:考研英语一阅读理解答案及解析是今天给大家带来的内容，真题可以作为检验复习效果的重要工具，帮助考生及时了解自己的学习进度和水平。同学们如果还想了解其他问题，可以在右侧小窗留言咨询。

推荐阅读：

2025考研全国各省市研招院校硕士研究生招生简章查询

2010-2024年考研政治试题及答案