2022年考博英语-华东政法大学考前模拟强化练习题64（附答案详解）

1、2022年考博英语-华东政法大学考前模拟强化练习题（附答案详解）1. 单选题_ for your help, I could not have accomplished the dissertation.问题1选项A.Had it been notB.Had not it beenC.Had not been itD.Had it not been【答案】D【解析】考查虚拟语气。当主句：主语 + should/would/could/might + have done，从句：If 主语 + had + done，表示和过去事实相反的情况，其中if可以省略。虚拟语气if省略时，句中的动词were、had或should和主语倒装，构成部分倒装：只需要将谓语中的助动词或情态动词置于主语之前。因此D选项正确。2. 单选题Lets speed up the lesson. If we _ too long on grammar, we _ enough time for oral activities.问题1选项A.spent.would getB.spent.would not getC.ha

2、d spent.would have gotD.had spentwould not have got【答案】B【解析】考查虚拟语气。句意：让我们加快上课速度。如果我们_太多在语法上，我们_足够的时间进行口语活动。根据句意可知提出对于现在的条件，主句：主语would/should/might/could动词原形；从句：动词过去式。因此B选项正确。3. 单选题A terrible traffic accident happened; people were saddened when they watched the _ sight on TV.问题1选项A.panicB.patrioticC.patheticD.periodic【答案】C【解析】考查形容词辨析。A选项panic“恐慌的；没有理由的”；B选项patriotic“爱国的”；C选项pathetic“可怜的，悲哀的；感伤的；乏味的”；D选项periodic“周期的；定期的”。句意：一场可怕的交通事故发生了；人们在电视上看到那_情景时感到很悲伤。本句表达“看到可怜的场景感到悲伤”，因此C选项正确。4. 单选题I really w

3、anted to say something at the meeting, but eventually _ from it.问题1选项A.preventedB.restrainedC.refrainedD.restricted【答案】C【解析】考查动词辨析。A选项prevented“预防，防止；阻止”；B选项restrained“抑制，控制；约束；制止（多用于refrain from doing sth.指克制自己以避免做某事）”；C选项refrained“节制，克制（以防变得过于激烈、强硬或直白）；避免；制止（通过拘留、上手铐等方式阻止囚犯等的暴力行为）（多用于restrain sb. from doing sth.）”；D选项restricted“限制，约束（使之不超过需要的范围，如大小、规模等）；限定（活动或行为）”。句意：我真想在会上说点什么，但最后还是_了。根据固定搭配restrain sb. from doing sth.可知本句表达“最后忍住了”，因此C选项正确。5. 单选题VII. Economic LawAs the U.S. Supreme Court addr

4、essed it in Dara Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, the loss causation requirement exists to assure that private securities fraud actions are “available, not to provide investors with broad insurance against market losses, but to protect them against those economic losses that misrepresentations actually cause.”Codification of the causation requirement in the PSLRA broke no new substantive ground. But, as the Supreme Court also counseled in Dura, the PSLRA “makes clear Congress intent to permit pr

5、ivate securities fraud actions for recovery where, but only where, plaintiffs adequately allege and prove the traditional elements of causation and loss.” In the wake of Dura, loss causation has become the critical element in both pleading and proof in securities fraud actions brought under the fraud-on-the-market theory, first embraced by a plurality of the Supreme Court in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson. In Basic, the Court created a rebuttable presumption of investor reliance on the market price of

6、a security that trades in an “efficient” market one in which the market price is presumed to reflect all information disseminated into that marketplace. The rebuttable presumption of reliance based on the fraud-on-the-market theory is critical to certification of investor class actions where, without it, certification would be virtually impossible as individual questions of reliance would predominate over any common questions. Although the Supreme Court has held that loss causation is not an ind

7、ividual question to be addressed as a matter of class certification, it is a central element of any private action under Exchange Act 10b and Rule 10b-5, and must accordingly be sufficiently pled to withstand a motion to dismiss, and ultimately supported by evidence, whether on summary judgment or at trial.Dura is the seminal pronouncement on the necessary showing of loss causation as a matter of both pleading and proof in fraud-on-the-market cases. The Supreme Court instructed that loss causati

8、on is neither sufficiently pleaded nor demonstrated merely by an artificially inflated market price and a later economic loss. Indeed, the Court cautioned in these cases that “the logical link between the inflated purchase price and any later economic loss is not invariably strong,” and that while an artificially inflated purchase might mean a later loss, that is not inevitably so. The Court spoke of a “tangle of factors” affecting market prices of securities, and that even though false or misle

9、ading information disseminated into the marketplace may “touch upon” a later economic loss for investors, to touch upon a loss is not to cause it, and it is actual causation that the law requires.1.From the first paragraph one is NOT able to say that Dara Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo _.2.Which of the following statement describes “fraud-on-the-market theory” most suitably?3.Loss causation is NOT _.4.Loss causation can be sufficiently demonstrated by _.问题1选项A.was heard by the US Federal Supreme CourtB.was an action about securities fraudC.was a case where the causation requirement was discussedD.provided investors with broad insurance against market losses问题2选项A.It is codified in the PSLRAB.It is critical to official recognition of in

《2022年考博英语-华东政法大学考前模拟强化练习题64（附答案详解）》由会员cl****1分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《2022年考博英语-华东政法大学考前模拟强化练习题64（附答案详解）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。