2. 外语
  3. For the past six years, crime rates have been falling all over America. In some big cities, the fall has been extraordinary. Bet

For the past six years, crime rates have been falling all over America. In some big cities, the fall has been extraordinary. Bet

admin2012-01-21  79
问题     For the past six years, crime rates have been falling all over America. In some big cities, the fall has been extraordinary. Between 1993 and 1997 in New York city violent crime fell by 39% in central Harlem and by 45% in the once-terrifying South Bronx. The latest figures released by the FBI, for 1997, show that serious crime continued to fall in all the larger cities, though a little more slowly than in 1996.
    Violent crime fell by 5% in all and by slightly more in cities with over 250,000 people. Property crimes have fallen, too, by more than 20% since 1980, so that the rates for burglary and car-theft are lower in America than they are in supposedly more law-abiding Britain and Scandinavia. And people have noticed. In 1994, 31% of Americans told pollsters that crime was the most important challenge facing the country, while in 1997, only 14% thought so. Some cities’ police departments are so impressed by these figures, it is said, that they have lately taken to exaggerating the plunge in crime.
    Why this has happened is anyone’s guess. Many factors — social, demographic, economic, and political — affect crime rate, so it is difficult to put a finger on the vital clue. In March this year, the FBI itself admitted it had "no idea" why rates were falling so fast.
    Politicians think they know, of course. Ask Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York, why his city has made such strides in beating crime that it accounts for fully a quarter of the national decline. He will cite his policy of "zero tolerance". This concept, which sprang from a famous article by two criminologists in Atlantic Monthly in March 1982, maintains that by refusing to tolerate tiny infractions of the law — dropping litter, spray — painting walls — the authorities can create a climate in which crime of more dangerous kinds finds it impossible to flourish. The Atlantic article was called "Broken Windows"; if one window in a building was left broken, it argued, all the others would soon be gone. The answer: mend the window, fast.
    The metro system in Washington, D.C was the first place where zero tolerance drew public attention, especially when one passenger was arrested for eating a banana. The policy seemed absurdly pernickety, yet it worked: in a better environment, people’s behavior improved, and crime dropped. Mr. Giuliani, taking this theme to heart, has gone further. He has cracked down on windscreen-cleaners, public urinates, graffiti, and even jaywalkers. He has excoriated New York’s famously sullen cabdrivers, and wants all New Yorkers to be nicer to each other. Tony Blair, visiting from London, has been hugely impressed.
    But is this cleanliness and civility the main reason why crime has fallen? It seems unlikely "Zero tolerance" can also be a distraction, making too many policemen spend too much time handing out littering tickets and parking fines while, some streets away, young men are being murdered for their trainers. It is localized, too: though lower Manhattan or the Washington metro can show the uncanny orderliness of a communist regime, other parts of the city — the areas of highest crime maybe left largely untreated.
    William Bratton, New York’s police commissioner until Mr. Giuliani fired him for stealing his thunder, has a different explanation for the fall in crime. It came about mostly, he believes, because he reorganized the police department and restored its morale: giving his officers better guns, letting them take more decisions for themselves, and moving them away from desk jobs and out into the struts. Mr. Bratton made his precinct commanders personally responsible for reducing crimes on their own beats. There was no passing the buck, and those who failed were fired. Within a year, he had replaced half of them.  
What can we conclude from paragraphs one and two about America between 1993 and 1997?
选项 A、Its crime rates have been failing only in big cities.
B、Violent crime falls by 39%.
C、The rates for burglary and car theft are lower in America than that in Britain.
D、Violent crime falls by more than 20%.
答案C
解析 本文的主题是美国犯罪率下降了，对于下降的原因，不同人士有不同的看法。 作者在说明这一主题时，较多地运用数据事实，并引用某些人的观点，全文并没有显示出 很多作者自己的观点。每个段落的主题比较容易判断。该题是针对前两段落内容进行推断。 这两个段落都是讲犯罪率的下降，分析四个选项内容，要注意选项内容中的具体细节是否 与段落中提及的一致。注意了这一点，答案也就不难判断。该题判断时可以用排除法。A 与第一段第一句表达的意思不符合，原文中提到的是全美而不只是大城市。B中的具体数 据是说明纽约城市的。D中的数据是说明property crimes而不是violent crime的，C与第二 段第二句后半部分的意思一致。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/ChXd777K
本试题收录于： 公共英语五级笔试题库公共英语（PETS）分类
0

公共英语五级笔试

公共英语（PETS）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)