10. It can be inferred that the objections raised by the critics mentioned in line 18 would be most clearly answered by a United States Supreme¹ Court decision that

　(A) demonstrated respect for Native Americans and the principles and qualities they consider important
　(B) protected the rights of the states in conflicts with the federal government
　(C) demonstrated recognition of the unfair treatment Native Americans received in the past
　(D) reflected consideration of the hardships suffered by Native Americans because of unfair treaties
　(E) prevented repetition of inequities experienced by Native Americans in the past

11. It can be inferred that the author calls the judicial² system of the United States "accommodating" (line 10) primarily in order to
　　
　(A) suggest that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have been less favorable to Native Americans than most people believe
　(B) suggest that the United States Supreme Court should be more supportive of the goals of Native Americans
　(C) suggest a reason why the decisions of the United States Supreme Court have not always favored Native Americans
　(D) indicate that the United States Supreme Court has made creditable efforts to recognize the values of Native Americans
　(E) indicate that the United States Supreme Court attempts to be fair to all parties to a case
　　
12. The author's attitude toward the United States Supreme Court's resolution of legal issues of concern to Native Americans can best be described as one of

　(A) wholehearted endorsement³
　(B) restrained appreciation⁴
　(C) detached objectivity
　(D) cautious opposition⁵
　(E) suppressed exasperation

13. It can be inferred that the author believes that the extension of the states' powers and jurisdictions⁶ with respect to Native American affairs would be

　(A) possible only with the consent of the Indian nations
　(B) favorably viewed by the United States Supreme Court
　(C) in the best interests of both state and federal governments
　(D) detrimental⁷ to the interests of Native Americans
　(E) discouraged by most federal judges in spite of legal precedents⁸ supporting the extension

14. The author's primary purpose is to
　　
　(A) contrast opposing views
　(B) reevaluate traditional beliefs
　(C) reconcile divergent opinions
　(D) assess the claims made by disputants
　(E) provide evidence to support a contention

15. It can be inferred that the author believes the United States Supreme Court's treatment of Native Americans to have been

　(A) irremproachable on legal grounds
　(B) reasonably supportive in most situations
　(C) guided by enduring principles of law
　(D) misguided but generally harmless
　(E) harmful only in a few minor⁹ cases

　When catastrophe¹⁰ strikes, analysts¹¹ typically blame some combination of powerful mechanisms¹³. An earthquake is traced to an immense instability along a fault line; a stock market crash is blamed on
　
(5) the destabilizing effect of computer trading. These explanations may well be correct. But systems as large and complicated as the Earth's crust or the stock market can break down not only under the force of a mighty¹⁴ blow but also at the drop of a pin.

(10)In a large interactive¹⁵ system, a minor event can start a chain reaction that leads to a catastrophe.
　Traditionally, investigators¹⁶ have analyzed¹⁸ large interactive systems in the same way they analyze¹⁷ small orderly systems, mainly because the methods

(15)developed for small systems have proved so successful. They believed they could predict the behavior of a large interactive system by studying its elements separately and by analyzing¹⁹ its component²⁰ mechanisms individually. For lack of a better

(20)theory, they assumed that in large interactive systems the response to a disturbance²¹ is proportional to that disturbance.

　During the past few decades, however, it has become increasingly apparent that many large

(25)complicated systems do not yield to traditional analysis. Consequently, heorists have proposed a "theory of self-organized criticality" many large interactive systems evolve naturally to a critical state in which a minor event starts a chain reaction

(30)that can affect any number of elements in the system. Although such systems produce more minor events than catastrophes²², the mechanism¹² that leads to minor events is the same one that leads to major events.
　
(35)A deceptively simple system serves as a paradigm²³ for self-organized criticality: a pile of sand. As sand is poured one grain at a time onto a fiat²⁴ disk the grains at first stay close to the position where they land. Soon they rest on top of one

(40)another creating a pile that has a gentle slope. Now and then, when the lope becomes too steep the grains slide down causing a small avalanche²⁵. The system reaches its critical state when the amount of sand added is balanced; on average, by the amount

(45)falling off the edge of the disk.

　Now when a grain of sand is added, it can start an avalanche of any size, including a "catastrophic" event. Most of the time the grain will fall so that no avalanche occurs. By studying a specific area of the
　
(50)pile, one can even predict whether avalanches²⁶ will occur there in the near future. To such a local observer, however, large avalanches would remain unpredictable because they are a consequence of the total history of the entire pile. No matter what

(55)the local dynamics are catastrophic avalanches would persist at a relative frequency that cannot be altered: Criticality is a global property of the sandpile

上一篇：LSAT考试全真题二SECTION4（2） 下一篇：LSAT考试全真题二SECTION4（4）