在线词典,在线翻译

2011年11月9日更新GMAT阅读机经(八)

所属:其他考试 作者:cwf1986 阅读:3188 次 评论:0 条 [我要评论]  [+我要收藏]

小编摘要:海词为您收集GMAT机经,充足的准备是考G成功的最重要的一步。

  56.**水权

  By sllynn

  有一篇是关于winter&united states法案的,看到开头还以为做过,结果是不一样的,开头说这个法案对native-american对水资源的权利界定不清楚,然后通篇反问句表现怎么不清楚,最后结论是这个法案造成了很多误会,题目也很简单。

  [考古]待确认~~

  v1

  关于water right的一个文章,和以前读过的一个印第安人水权的文章完全不一样。这个文章不太长,一屏。

  v2 (700)

  印第安人水资源使用权的纠纷是从一个WW法案开始的。这个法案最开始由SUPREMECOURT判决水使用权归属印第安人,后来又判决说印第安人只有使用水资源去充分满足灌溉需求的权利。

  然后作者就开始喋喋不休的反问这个说法到底是什么意思,到底是充分满足灌溉呢?灌溉要用多少呢?还是充分满足农业需求呢?还是在印第安人人口增加的基础上可以进一步增加他们使用水资源的量呢?这样做会不会损害非印第安人的权利呢?(此处有细节题和高亮题,只要看懂这两句话就很好回答,细节题大意是为什么作者说非印第安人权利将会受损呢?我选的是因为印第安人人口增长)然后继续反问在什么地方怎么具体应用这个法案呢?比如源头的水怎么分配?离源头有距离的地下水怎么办?需要开井吗?井开了之后的归属权给谁?…..BLABLA反问一堆之后,最后一句陈述句是说这些问题give rise to court间的争议。(有题,问主旨,选不是detail court的争议而是描述法案影响,好像是,大家具体再看题吧。)

  【考古】

  v1

  主要用反问句突出 the ambiguity of the court’s decision, open-end ruling creates many misinterpretations

  - one thesis question

  - one question focus on the right to develop land of non-native Americans, SA: the water right of native Americans will expand as their population expand – create difficulties for non-native Americans to develop land

  - 还有一道细节定位和一道内容推理题, 有一题答案大意应该是the underground water determines the amount of surface stream

  v2

  我记得有90行,而且作者用了八个问号质问在实际运用这个法律解决问题的时候所引起的误解! 而且句子特长,但题目不难,就是问主题及一个例子在句子中的作用,没有考得特别细!

  v3

  水权变体篇”,这次时说这个法案一直引发争议。其中说到水权是否应如法案所述仅用于灌溉(有题),那么印第安人如果要用水发展其他行业,如养鱼等就不行了,这不公平。后来又有人认为水权所指的水,定义不明确。是否应该包括地下水(有题),云云。通篇都是问号和争论。共 66行。还有文章的主旨题。

  v4

  关于是水权的,和GWD完全不一样!!!除了法案的名字。。简直ETS害人。主要说法案的定义模糊,为以后的纠纷埋下祸根。很扰,有好多例子说明。

  v5

  今天70多行的阅读中出现了WINTER & WUTHER(就是GWD中裁定印第安人的哪个法律),开始我一下惊喜,谁知道通篇都是对这个法律中定义印第安人用水权利的两个定义的ambiguity 的发问,起码有7到8个正问和反问来发展文章,第一次见到这种写作模式。有主题题和取非题目。

  v6

  一篇时说一个法院的判决 about the water that can be used by the native american,大致说因为这个规定非常模糊,很容易造成误解,不知道native 是不是只限于使用地上水还是地下水,只用于灌溉还是所有的,如果native人口增加了,那他们所规定使用的水增加吗?就是一系列不同的 interpretation。

  v7

  1.印地安水權: Supreme Court 規定水權法案中,印地安人擁有水權的用途是irrigation.作者認為"irrigation"的範圍是open-ended的.接著提出很多反問: 印地安人除了灌溉之外,是否可以用作其他用途呢? 人口增加,使用的水可以增加嗎? 如果non-native american使用groundwater而影響到native american的水權時,該怎麼辦? 因為水權的解釋模糊,對於non-native american and native american都造成了影響, 最後一句說,low court and high court在水權的判決上也產生很多爭議(有題).另有主題題.

  v8

  阅读中有关于美国土著人水权的问题,由于高院前后两次的解释不同,引起诸多问题,各位网友要注意,里面有作者的8个问号(这可是我数的),是对水权的挑战,全文90行,我的天,我差点昏倒,不过,还好,题目倒也简单!

  【背景知识】

  *美国土著部落的用水权*

  虽然大部份西部用水权都有一个水资源首先被有益使用的优先权日期,不过联邦用水权还是可以追溯到“印第安人保留区”建立的日期。对大多数印第安人来说,这个日期比大多数白人开发者开始耕种这些土地的时间还要早,因此他们用水的时间早于许多人。

  安妮·卡斯尔律师说:“印第安人部落拥有类似主权政府的地位,它们受到很多法律保护,用水权法就是其中一项。印第安人部落可以把保留区成立的日期当作‘首先用水权的日期根据’。因此,如果一个印第安人保留区是国会在1870年确立的,他们的部落就可以分配到足够的水资源来满足部落合理的需求,包括土地灌溉。即使某人的用水权已经早已由法庭确立,但如果印第安纳人保留区在这个权利确立之前已经形成,那么保留区所需用水量就可以优先于这个权利。”

  早在1908年,美国联邦最高法院就在一个具有里程碑意义的案例中裁决说,联邦政府所划分的印地安人保留区以及公共土地必须有充足的水资源来实现当初被建立的目的。这个案子叫“温斯特起诉联邦政府案”。案子的经过是这样的。几个在蒙塔拿的印第安人部落向法院控告在保留区附近开发土地的白人,把越来越多的水资源用来灌溉土地,并且让马群及牛群饮用。这些开发者和印第安人之间的关系到 1905年突然恶化,因为乾旱严重影响了当地的供水情况。于是,1851年划分保留区的美国政府就代表印第安人向法院控告了这些开发者,以避免保留区上游的水资源被用尽。联邦最高法院的裁决维护了印第安人部落的用水权。裁决说,水源上游的使用者不能通过建水坝或水库的方式减少印第安人保留灌溉所需的水资源。

  马克·谢里登律师解释了这个原则的实际运用方式。他说: “通过对温特斯案的判决,联邦最高法院承认了印第安人的优先用水权,并确定了印第安部落的用水量。他们设计了一种方法,把印第安人‘实际可灌溉的土地面积”的权利数量化,以此表明印第安人的用水权是建立在农业用水的基础之上的。联邦最高法院希望确定在保留区范围内有多大面积的土地从实际和经济效益的角度上看是可灌溉的。法院的做法是:使有关各方作出成本及利润分析,计算有多少可灌溉面积是符合经济效益、有利润的,以及灌溉过程中需要多少水等等。”

  当今社会所面临的问题是,为美国土著人保留的水资源量是根据他们过去的农业目的计算的。今天,一些印第安人部落想从事现代商业活动,比如经营度假胜地或高尔夫球场,这些都比传统的耕作需要更多的水,因此迫切需要法院在今日快速发展的美国西部地区,重新裁定印第安人保留区的用水量。

  谢里登律师解释说,水资源被重新计量以后,印第安人保留区将可以自由使用水资源。他说:“印第安人部落的水权被计量后,这个部落就有权将他们保留区范围内的水资源用于各种用途,比如农业、建造高尔夫球场,或者用于其他城市、娱乐、工业或商业用途。”

  虽然不是原文,就当是背景知识了:

  GWD-10-Q25-Q28 N-3-Q20-Q23 N-2-Q23-Q26 G-10-Q25-Q28

  In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created the reservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

  Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States’ acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other

  citizens’ water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.

  GWD-10-Q25 N-3-Q20 G-10-Q25:

  The author cites the fact that the Rio Grande pueblos were never formally withdrawn from public lands primarily in order to do which of the following?

  A. Suggest why it might have been argued that the Winters doctrine ought not to apply to pueblo lands

  B. Imply that the United States never really acquired sovereignty over pueblo lands

  C. Argue that the pueblo lands ought still to be considered part of federal public lands

  D. Support the argument that the water rights of citizens other than American Indians are limited by the Winters doctrine

  E. Suggest that federal courts cannot claim jurisdiction over cases disputing the traditional diversion and use of water by Pueblo Indians

  ------------------------------------------------------------------

  GWD-10-Q26 N-3-Q21 G-10-Q26:

  The passage suggests that, if the criteria discussed in lines 16 – 32 were the only criteria for establishing a reservation’s water rights, which of the following would be true?

  A. The water rights of the inhabitants of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation would not take precedence over those of other citizens.

  B. Reservations established before 1848 would be judged to have no water rights.

  C. There would be no legal basis for the water rights of the Rio Grande pueblos.

  D. Reservations other than American Indian reservations could not be created with reserved water rights.

  E. Treaties establishing reservations would have to mention water rights explicitly in order to reserve water for a particular purpose.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------

  GWD-10-Q27 N-3-Q22 G-10-Q27:

  According to the passage, which of the following was true of the treaty establishing the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation?

  A. It was challenged in the Supreme Court a number of times.

  B. It was rescinded by the federal government, an action that gave rise to the Winters case.

  C. It cited American Indians’ traditional use of the land’s resources.

  D. It failed to mention water rights to be enjoyed by the reservation’s inhabitants.

  E. It was modified by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. California.

  GWD-10-Q28 N-3-Q23 G-10-Q28:

  The primary purpose of the passage is to

  A. trace the development of laws establishing American Indian reservations

  B. explain the legal bases for the water rights of American Indian tribes

  C. question the legal criteria often used to determine the water rights of American Indian tribes

  D. discuss evidence establishing the earliest date at which the federal government recognized the water rights of American Indians

  E. point out a legal distinction between different types of American Indian reservations

  答案:ACDB

0
2012-02-15 18:09 编辑:cwf1986
分享到:
关注海词微博:
发表评论:
表达一些您的想法吧!已有0条评论>>
登录,再发表评论
文明上网,理性发言!
您可能还感兴趣的文章:
  • [其他考试]美国大学GRE和GMAT要求

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology GRE: 1353 GMAT:720   Stanford University (CA) GRE: 1354 GMAT:720   University of California–Berkeley GRE: 1353 GMAT:707   Georgia In
  • [其他考试]【考试介绍】GMAT考试介绍

    GMAT考试是美国管理专业招收研究生委员会主办和负责指导的考试, 其英文全称是Graduate Management Admission Test。GMAT考试的科目包括会计学、经济学、管理学、普通管理、生产管理、行政管理、