[問題]請教兩題CR...(GMAT CR大全)

[asicschu]

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

1. The author of the passage above assumes all of the following EXCEPT:
(A) The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected.
(B) Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(C) The number of cases whose outcome has been affected by the exclusionary rule is significant.
(D) Some of the defendants set free under the exclusionary rule have been guilty of serious criminal offenses.
(E) Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.

2. It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?
(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith
(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime
(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses
(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court
(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal

Ans: 1. B 2. A

[micht]

這一題我有看
還在思考中...........

[asicschu]

麻煩大家了唷...
幫小弟我解答一下...

[Jacklin]

這題被塵封很久了，有人已經參透而且有好的意見嗎？
小女子尤其對(B)(E)的意思感到困惑，
(B)Most cases in which the exclusionary rule has been invoked have involved purely technical violations of constitutional principles.
(E)Merely technical violations of the rules concerning evidence should be treated differently from deliberate assaults upon human rights.

[vickykuo]

就小女子淺見而言~
(B)most cases have involved purely technical...似乎太過武斷，文章中只說明the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, 並未說most cases..
(E)文章中說明即使在兩種情況下evidence may not even by introduced
the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, and
the polic officers were acting in good faith
因此作者暗示經由purely technical violation 取得的證據與故意傷害人權的證據有差別...
但是小女子我對於A-The constitutional rights of criminal defendants should be protected 有特別的意見...
(不知是我想法怪異還是怎樣..都沒有人問這個選項耶..)
(A)怎摸會是the author's assumption??
想了好久...誰可以救救我...>0<

[dibert8]

第一題的 (E) 令我想很久,後來想出來理解為"單就技術犯規應不予視為蓄意的人身攻擊",這裡講的蒐集證據時不可有蓄意的人身攻擊,其實是憲法為保護被告人權的一部.題目裡提到技術犯規被認為蒐證有瑕疵,作者不以為然,因此作者的確站在 (E) 的觀點.
(B) most 為爭議字眼,作者並無此假設 (還有 minor technical violation, police officers' good faith, 所以並不大多是 purely technical violation)

第二題:
(B) (E) 作者並沒有說憲法不對
(C) 作者舉的例子都是重罪 (steal, rape, or murder)
(D) any 武斷字眼
=> (A) : 作者贊成採信 police officers' good faith