2. 学历类
  3. In a big decision,the Supreme Court over

In a big decision,the Supreme Court over

admin2022-08-02  13
问题 In a big decision,the Supreme Court overturned a 1992 federal law that had effectively banned all states except Nevada from legalizing sports betting.The court had no opinion about sports gambling itself.11 merely reasserted a constitutional restraint on federal power over the states.So before states rush to permit,regulate,and tax sports betting,they may want to first weigh the original reasons behind the now-defunct ban.The big reason given back then by Congress was to maintain sports as a public display of talent,effort,and teamwork-the very opposite of a belief in chance.The integrity of athletes lies in their ability to master the circumstances of a game.In sports,unforeseen circumstances are not considered luck but rather a challenge to test the skills of athletes.Sports should not be sullied by the false hopes of quick riches by gamblers pining for a"lucky break."Like society itself,sports rely on each person's desire to understand the causality of evenrs and make the best of them.Athletes know they cannot put faith in so-called fortune.Nor should governments.If states now boost sports betting by legatizing it,what message are they sending about athletics-in fact,about any physical or mental endeavor?According to Bill Bradley,a former NBA star and the then-senator who sponsored the 1992 law,placing bets on players makes them no better than roulette chips.Sports have a dignity thai defies those who want to see games turning on a twist of fate.Mr.Bradley also gives a second reason for governments not to push betting on sports.Should gambling be allowed on Little League games or middle-school athletics?Even New Jersey,which led the case against the 1992 act,did not want betting on its local teams.Up to now,most major professional sports leagues were opposed to lifting the federal ban.They feared athletes might throw a game or simply rig a play at the request of gambling agencies,as is often the case in many parts of the world.If games were seen as gamed,fans might flee.Now after this ruling,however,leagues might be tempted by the possibility they could get what is misnamed an"integrity fee,"or a percentage of gambling revenues from each game.States,too,appear tempted to gain tax revenue from sports gambling-although they should first look at how little Nevada has actually gainecl from sports betting in comparison to other types of gambling.The uncertainties of legalized,regulated sports gambling in the United States are very high.But one certainty remains:Sports must remain pure in their purpose as a contest of what athletes give in a game,not what betting can take from them.Bill Bradley meniioned New Jersey in particular in order toA.argue against the pusli to expand sports betting.B.stress the need for tougher regulation on youth sports.C.explain the importance to protect local sports teams.D.reveal the hidden flaws in the state's sports laws.
选项 A.argue against the pusli to expand sports betting.
B.stress the need for tougher regulation on youth sports.
C.explain the importance to protect local sports teams.
D.reveal the hidden flaws in the state's sports laws.
答案 A
解析 第五段解释布拉德利反对政府推进体育博彩的另一原因。②句以反问引出原因：（若各州把体育博彩合法化）小联盟比赛或中学体育比赛似乎也可以允许赌博？③句以新泽西州情形给出否定回答：即使是反对1992年法令的新泽西州也不赞成对本地球队下注。故布莱德利提及新泽西州是为了反对各州政府推进体育博彩．A.正确。[解题技巧]B.C.D.干扰分别源自第五段的“小联盟比赛或中学体育比赛”、“（新泽西州）不赞成对本地球队下注”、“（新泽西州）对1992年法令提起诉讼”，但该段②③句语义逻辑实为：若推进体育博彩合法化，青少年体育比赛也会受到博彩的不良影响；即便是反对1992禁令的新泽西州也不赞成对本地的青少年球队下注（显然各州不愿意让青少年体育被博彩玷污）；其目的是反对推进体育博彩，三项均偏离此意。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/xueli/2697793.html
本试题收录于： 英语一研究生题库研究生入学分类

英语一研究生

研究生入学

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)