For more than two decades, U.S. courts have been limiting affirmative-action programs in universities and other areas. The legal rationale is that racial preferences are unconstitutional, even those intended to compensate for racism or intolerance. For many colleges, this means students can be admitted only on merit, not on their race or ethnicity. It has been a divisive issue across the U.S., as educators blame the prolonged reaction to affirmative-action for declines in minority admissions. Meanwhile, activists continue to battle race preferences in courts from Michigan to North Carolina.

Now, chief executives of about two dozen companies have decided to plunge headfirst into this politically unsettled debate. They, together with 36 universities and 7 nonprofitable organizations, formed a forum that set forth an action plan essentially designed to help colleges circumvent court-imposed restrictions on affirmative action. The CEOs’ motive: “Our audience is growing more diverse, so the communities we serve benefit if our employees are racially and ethnically diverse as well”, says one CEO of a compang that owns nine television stations.

Among the steps the forum is pushing: finding creative yet legal ways to boost minority enrollment through new admissions policies; promoting admissions decisions that look at more than test scores; and encouraging universities to step up their minority outreach and financial aid. And to counter accusations by critics to challenge these tactics in court, the group says it will give legal assistance to colleges sued for trying them. “Diversity diminished by the court must be made up for in other legitimate, legal ways,” says, a forum member.

One of the more controversial methods advocated is the so-called 10% rule. The idea is for public universities—which educate three-quarters of all U.S. undergraduates—to admit students who are in the top 10% of their high school graduating class. Doing so allows colleges to take minorities who excel in average urban schools, even if they wouldn’t have made the cut under the current statewide ranking many universities use.

1. U.S. court restrictions on affirmative action signifies that______.

[A]minorities no longer hold the once favored status

[B]the quality of American colleges has improved

[C]racial preferences has replaced racial prejudice

[D]the minority is on an equal footing with the majority

2. What has been a divisive issue across the United States?

[A]Whether affirmative action should continue to exist.

[B]Whether this law is helping minorities or the white majority.

[C]Whether racism exists in American college admission.

[D]Whether racial intolerance should be punished.

3. CEOs of big companies decided to help colleges enroll more minority students because they_____.

[A]think it wrong to deprive the minorities of their rights to receive education

[B]want to conserve the fine characteristics of American nation

[C]want a workforce that reflects the diversity of their customers

[D]think it their duty to help develop education of the country

4. The major tactic the forum uses is to_____.

[A]battle the racial preferences in court

[B]support colleges involved in lawsuits of racism

[C]strive to settle this political debate nationwide

[D]find legally viable ways to ensure minority admissions

5. If the 10% rule is applied, ______.

[A]the best white high school students can get into colleges

[B]public universities can get excellent students

[C]students from poor rural families can go to colleges

[D]good minority students can get into public universities

參考答案

1. A 2.B 3.C 4.D 5.D

1.【金考網(wǎng)銀行招聘答案解析】本題考查推理引申。第一段首句提到美國法院對(duì)平等權(quán)利法案的限制。第二句指出其理論依據(jù)是種族照顧政策是違反憲法的。第三句指出這種做法意味著對(duì)學(xué)生的錄取不再考慮其種族或民族背景。由此可推知，[A]是該做法的潛在含義。[B]文中未提，[C]明顯錯(cuò)誤，因?yàn)樵撆e動(dòng)恰恰是反對(duì)種族照顧政策。[D]表面上看似乎有點(diǎn)道理，但根據(jù)第一段的論述可知，“平等”并不是本文主要涉及的內(nèi)容。

2. 【金考網(wǎng)銀行招聘答案解析】本題考查句意理解。第一段第四句提到，“這在整個(gè)美國范圍內(nèi)引起了爭議”，注意句中it指的是上文提到的“限制平等權(quán)利法案的做法”。該句中as引導(dǎo)的原因狀語從句解釋了引起爭議的原因，即，教育者們認(rèn)為它造成了少數(shù)民族錄取率的降低。因此引起爭議的是限制平等權(quán)利法案的影響，排除[A]。[B]雖然與文中論述不完全一樣，但它其實(shí)就等于說“這種做法到底是有利于哪一方”，因此是正確項(xiàng)。第一段主要論述的是“種族照顧政策”，不是“種族歧視”或“不容忍行為”，排除[C]和[D]。

3. 【金考網(wǎng)銀行招聘答案解析】本題考查推理引申。根據(jù)題干定位到第二段。該段最后一句通過引用一位電視公司總裁的話解釋了原因：我們的觀眾越來越多元化，所以如果員工來自不同的種族和民族，那么我們服務(wù)的機(jī)構(gòu)將會(huì)受益。由此可推知，[C]為正確項(xiàng)。其他項(xiàng)均未提及。

4. 【金考網(wǎng)銀行招聘答案解析】本題考查事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)。論壇推行的策略在第三段第一句提到。其中第一種是找到通過新的錄取政策增加少數(shù)民族錄取人數(shù)的有創(chuàng)意且合法的辦法。[D]符合這種策略，為正確項(xiàng)。[A]與論壇的宗旨相悖，因?yàn)檎搲且S護(hù)平等權(quán)利法案和少數(shù)民族利益的。[B]錯(cuò)在racism，第三段后半部分提到，論壇將援助那些由于嘗試他們提出的策略而被起訴的大學(xué)。第二段首句只提到，一些公司總裁決定帶頭加入這場(chǎng)政治上很爭議的辯論之中。因此，[C]“解決爭論”無從推知。

5.【金考網(wǎng)銀行招聘答案解析】本題考查事實(shí)細(xì)節(jié)。根據(jù)題干關(guān)鍵詞the 10% rule定位到第四段。該段提到，該規(guī)則將使公立大學(xué)錄取在高中畢業(yè)班排名前10%的學(xué)生。這種方法也使公立大學(xué)能招收到一般城市學(xué)校中名列前茅的少數(shù)民族學(xué)生。因此[D]正確。[A]和[B]本身表述并沒有錯(cuò)，但都是泛泛而談，沒有具體提到“公立大學(xué)”或“少數(shù)民族學(xué)生”。[C]在文中根本沒有涉及。

更多關(guān)注：

2014年銀行招聘英語模擬練習(xí)

2014年銀行招聘公共基礎(chǔ)知識(shí)演練

2014年銀行招聘行政能力測(cè)試練習(xí)題

（責(zé)任編輯：lqh）

共2頁,當(dāng)前第1頁  第一頁  前一頁  下一頁