单选题
The guild-like ownership structure is considered “restrictive”partly because it
A．bans outsiders’ involvement in the profession.
B．keeps lawyers from holding law-firm shares.
C．aggravates the ethical situation in the trade.
D．prevents lawyers from gaining due profits.
【答案】[A] bans outsiders’ involvement in the profession
【解析】题目问“类似于行会的所有权体制被认为是限制性的，部分原因是什么”，文章第五段首句讲“费用高的另外一个原因是，限制性的类似于行会的所有权体制”，第二、三句对否定性的形容词restrictive进行解释，“除了哥伦比亚特区，非律师可能不会拥有法律公司的任何股份，这使得费用很高，改革缓慢”，故行会一样的所有权体制被认为是限制性的，部分原因是“禁止外人进入行业”，故答案为[B] bans outsiders’ involvement in the profession。 （本解析由
安宝蓝提供）
你可能感兴趣的试题
1
In this text, the author mainly discusses
A．flawed ownership of America’s law firms and its causes.
B．the factors that help make a successful lawyer in America.
C．a problem in America’s legal profession and solutions to it.
D．the role of undergraduate studies in America’s legal education.
2
Text 3
根据以下资料，回答题。
The US$3-million Fundamental physics prize is indeed an interesting experiment, as Alexander Polyakov said when he accepted this year’s award in March. And it is far from the only one of its type. As a News Feature article in Nature discusses, a string of lucrative awards for researchers have joined the Nobel Prizes in recent years. Many, like the Fundamental Physics Prize, are funded from the telephone-number-sized bank accounts of Internet entrepreneurs. These benefactors have succeeded in their chosen fields, they say, and they want to use their wealth to draw attention to those who have succeeded in science.
What’s not to like? Quite a lot, according to a handful of scientists quoted in the News Feature. You cannot buy class, as the old saying goes, and these upstart entrepreneurs cannot buy their prizes the prestige of the Nobels, The new awards are an exercise in self-promotion for those behind them, say scientists. They could distort the achievement-based system of peer-review-led research. They could cement the status quo of peer-reviewed research. They do not fund peer-reviewed research. They perpetuate the myth of the lone genius.
The goals of the prize-givers seem as scattered as the criticism. Some want to shock, others to draw people into science, or to better reward those who have made their careers in research.
As Nature has pointed out before, there are some legitimate concerns about how science prizes—both new and old—are distributed. The Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, launched this year, takes an unrepresentative view of what the life sciences include. But the Nobel Foundation’s limit of three recipients per prize, each of whom must still be living, has long been outgrown by the collaborative nature of modern research—as will be demonstrated by the inevitable row over who is ignored when it comes to acknowledging the discovery of the Higgs boson. The Nobels were, of course, themselves set up by a very rich individual who had decided what he wanted to do with his own money. Time, rather than intention, has given them legitimacy.
As much as some scientists may complain about the new awards, two things seem clear. First, most researchers would accept such a prize if they were offered one. Second, it is surely a good thing that the money and attention come to science rather than go elsewhere, It is fair to criticize and question the mechanism—that is the culture of research, after all—but it is the prize-givers’ money to do with as they please. It is wise to take such gifts with gratitude and grace.
The Fundamental Physics Prize is seen as
A．a symbol of the entrepreneurs’ wealth.
B．a possible replacement of the Nobel Prizes.
C．an example of bankers’ investments.
D．a handsome reward for researchers.
