ACT示範解題
English
I grew up with buckets, shovels, and nets waiting by the back door;1 hip-waders hanging in the closet; tide table charts covering the refrigerator door; and a microscope was sitting2 on the kitchen table. Having studied, my mother is3 a marine biologist. Our household might have been described as uncooperative.4 Our meals weren’t always served in the expected order of breakfast, lunch, and supper.
Everything was subservient to the disposal of5 the tides. When the tide was low, Mom could be found down on the mudflats. When the tide was high, she would be standing on the inlet bridge with her plankton net.
1. Choose the best answer.
(A) NO CHANGE
(B) waiting, by the back door,
(C) waiting by the back door,
(D) waiting by the back door
解析:
The best answer is (A).
此題考點「平行結構」，需閱讀畫底線後的幾句話，了解此題連續出現三個平行結構。
選項 (B)(C)(D) 無法形成平行結構，因標點符號錯置。
2. Choose the best answer.
(E) NO CHANGE
(F) would sit
(G) sitting
(H) sat
解析：
The best answer is (G).
此題考點「平行結構」，需閱讀畫底線後的幾句話，了解此題連續出現三個平行結構並用「分號」做文章語氣停頓。
3. Choose the best answer.
A. NO CHANGE
B. As my mother’s interest is science, she is
C. My mother’s occupation is that of
D. My mother is
解析：
The best answer is (D).
考點句子簡單式，選項 (D)句型簡潔清楚，符合 clear 原則。
選項 (B)不需另外用 As 表示因果連接兩個句型。
選項 (C )that of 會造成句子累贅問題。
4. Which choice would most effectively introduce the rest of this paragraph?
(E) NO CHANGE
(F)There seemed to be no explanation for why Mom ran our household the way she did.
(G) Our household didn’t run according to a typical schedule.
(H) Mom ran our household in a most spectacular manner.
解析：
The best answer is (G).
"Our meals weren’t always served in the expected order of breakfast, lunch, and supper"此句話得知，the household 不會依照一般日常作息活動，而是照海水潮汐(tide)，選項 (G)符合。
5. Choose the best answer.
A. NO CHANGE
B. was defenseless in the face of
C. depended on
D. trusted in
解析：
The best answer is (C).
"Everything depended on the tides"選項(C)句型簡潔清楚，符合 clear 原則。
選項(B)贅字太多。
選項(D)為信任、託付，語意不符。
Reading
Personality Disorders
How should the law treat a mentally disturbed person who commits a criminal offense? Should individuals whose mental faculties are impaired be held responsible for their actions? These questions are of concern to social scientists, to members of the legal profession, and to individuals who work with criminal offenders.
Over the centuries, an important part of Western law has been the concept that a civilized society should not punish a person who is mentally incapable of controlling his or her conduct. In 1724, an English court maintained that a man was not responsible for an act if“he doth not know what he is doing, no more than . . . a wild beast.” Modern standards of legal responsibility, however, have been based on the McNaghten decision of 1843. McNaghten, a Scotsman, suffered the paranoid delusion that he was being persecuted by the English prime minister, Sir Robert Peel. In an attempt to kill Peel, he mistakenly shot Peel’s secretary. Everyone involved in the trial was convinced by McNaghten’s senseless ramblings that he was insane. He was judged not responsible by reason of insanity and sent to a mental hospital, where he remained until his death. But Queen Victoria was not pleased with the verdict—apparently she felt that political assassinations should not be taken lightly—and called on the House of Lords to review the decision. The decision was upheld and rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into writing. The McNaghten Rule states that a defendant may be found “not guilty by reason of insanity” only if he were so severely disturbed at the time of his act that he did not know what he was doing, or that if he did know what he was doing, he did not know it was wrong.
The McNaghten Rule was adopted in the United States, and the distinction of knowing right from wrong remained the basis of most decisions of legal insanity for over a century. Some states added to their statutes the doctrine of “irresistible impulse,” which recognizes that some mentally ill individuals may respond correctly when asked if a particular act is morally right or wrong but still be unable to control their behavior.
During the 1970s, a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute, which states:“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” The word substantial suggests that “any” incapacity is not enough to avoid criminal responsibility but that “total” incapacity is not required either. The use of the word appreciate rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have some understanding of the moral or legal consequences of their behavior before they can be held criminally responsible.
The problem of legal responsibility in the case of mentally disordered individuals is currently a topic of intense debate, and a number of legal and mental health professionals have recommended abolishing the insanity plea as a defense. The reasons for this recommendation are varied. Many experts believe that the current courtroom procedures—in which psychiatrists and psychologists for the prosecution and the defense present contradictory evidence as to the defendant’s mental state—are confusing to the jury and do little to help the cause of justice. Some also argue that the abuse of the insanity plea by clever lawyers has allowed too many criminals to escape conviction. Others claim that acquittal by reason of insanity often leads to a worse punishment (an indeterminate sentence to an institution for the criminally insane that may confine a person for life) than being convicted and sent to prison (with the possibility of parole in a few years).
Despite the current controversy, actual cases of acquittal by reason of insanity are quite rare. Jurors seem reluctant to believe that people are not morally responsible for their acts, and lawyers, knowing that an insanity plea is apt to fail, tend to use it only as a last resort. In California in 1980, only 259 defendants (out of approximately 52,000) were successful in pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.
1. One of the author’s main points about the legal concept of responsibility in the passage is that:
(A) the phrase “not guilty by reason of insanity” has made our legal system more efficient.
(B) responsibility and guilt are legal concepts, and their meanings can be modified
(C) knowing right from wrong is a simple matter of admitting the truth to oneself.
(D) people can become severely disturbed without a word of warning to anyone.
解析：
The best answer is (B).
定位點由第二段得知 McNaghten Rule 與第四、五段得知 During the 1970s, a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute, which states:“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his 50conduct to the requirements of the law.
若犯罪者有精神疾病，缺乏認知能力，則不需受罰
2. Based on the passage, the primary purpose for the 1970s redefinition of insanity proposed by the American Law Institute was to:
(E) eliminate the insanity defense from American courtrooms.
(F) more precisely define the concepts of responsibility and intellectual capacity.
(G) redefine legal insanity so that it might include as many criminals as possible.
(H) apply the McNaghten Rule only to trials involving cases of mistaken identity.
解析：
The best answer is (F).
定位點(43-59 句)1970 年重新定義 sanity 更詳細說明 when "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct 與 a person must have "substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."
3. From information in the third and fourth paragraphs (lines 35–58) it can reasonably be inferred that the legal definition of insanity was changed in the 1970s after:
(A) federal courts won a dispute with state courts over a proposal made by the American Law Institute.
(B) the doctrine of ―irresistible impulse‖ was found to contradict accepted notions of justice.
(C) proponents of the McNaghten Rule had been using the insanity defense in far too many murder trials.
(D) several courts found that justice was not always best served when the McNaghten Rule was applied.
解析：
The best answer is (D).
考點第三、四段 Some states added to their statutes the doctrine of 'irresistible impulse,'" (lines 38-39), and later "a number of state and federal courts adopted a broader legal definition of insanity" 由此兩句話可推論出 the original McNaghten Rule 並不適用
4. According to the explanation provided in the fourth paragraph (lines 43–58), use of the word appreciate in the phrase ―to appreciate the wrongfulness‖ (lines 48–49) instead of know implies which of the following?
(E) The difference between right and wrong is something people feel rather than know, which makes deciding legal responsibility difficult.
(F) To know implies certainty, and distinguishing right from wrong is often a subjective matter in determining legal responsibility.
(G) The word appreciate suggests that an action and that action’s implications must be understood for there to be legal responsibility.
(H) An insane person would ―know‖ something the way a sane person would ―know‖ something, and be able to appreciate that knowledge, too
解析：
The best answer is (G).
定位點(53-58 句) The use of the word appreciate rather than know implies that intellectual awareness of right or wrong is not enough; individuals must have some understanding of the moral or legal consequences of their behavior before they can be held criminally responsible.
解釋在犯罪前，一般犯罪者是有基本道德 與法律觀念
5. The passage indicates that the McNaghten case became the basis for future decisions about legal insanity because:
(A) the House of Lords upheld the verdict of the court despite considerable political pressure.
(B) there had been an increase in cases of murder involving mistaken identity arising from delusions.
(C) McNaghten was unable to convince the jury at his trial that he was incoherent and insane.
(D) McNaghten used a gun to commit murder, thus aggravating the crime in the jury’s mind.
解析：
The best answer is (A).
定位點(24-29 句) But Queen Victoria was not pleased with the verdict— apparently she felt that political assassinations should not be taken lightly—and called on the House of Lords to review the decision. The decision was upheld and rules for the legal definition of insanity were put into writing.
意指 the House of Lord 支持法院的說詞，雖然受到 Queen Victoria 之政治壓力
(題目來源：ACT Official公開資訊)