26. The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to
- A. prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.
- B. search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.
- C. check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.
- D. prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.
答案：C
答案句：The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
参考译文：最高法院现在将考虑，如果在逮捕时手机在一个人身上或附近，警察是否可以在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机的内容。
定位线索：题干“The Supreme Court will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to”→答案句取自第1段“The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest”；文中“search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant”对应选项C“check suspects' phone contents without being authorized”（“search”对应“check”，“without a warrant”对应“without being authorized”）。
解析：题干问最高法院将确定逮捕期间何种行为是否合法，答案句直接说明法院考虑的是警察能否在没有搜查令的情况下搜查手机内容，这与选项C“未经授权检查嫌疑人手机内容”完全对应。选项A“防止嫌疑人删除手机内容”、B“搜查嫌疑人手机”（未提内容）和D“禁止嫌疑人使用手机”均与原文不符，属于无中生有。
27. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of
- A. disapproval.
- B. indifference.
- C. tolerance.
- D. cautiousness.
答案：A
答案句：The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California's advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, so that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants. They should start by discarding California's lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone – a vast storehouse of digital information – is similar to, say, going through a suspect's purse.
参考译文：如果法院遵循加利福尼亚州的建议，那将是鲁莽的谦虚。这些影响有足够多是可以辨别的，甚至是明显的，因此法官们能够而且应该向警察、律师和被告提供更新的指导方针。他们应该从抛弃加利福尼亚州站不住脚的论点开始，即探索智能手机的内容——一个巨大的数字信息库——类似于翻查嫌疑人的钱包。
定位线索：题干“The author's attitude toward California's argument”→答案句取自第3段和第4段“The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California's advice”和“discarding California's lame argument”；文中“recklessly modest”和“lame”（意为“站不住脚的”）体现否定态度，对应选项A“disapproval”（不赞成）。
解析：作者用“recklessly modest”（鲁莽的谦虚）和“lame argument”（站不住脚的论点）等贬义词评价加州的观点，明确表达不赞成态度，对应选项A。选项B“indifference”（冷漠）、C“tolerance”（容忍）和D“cautiousness”（谨慎）均与原文的强烈否定语气不符，属于无中生有。
28. The author believes that exploring one’s phone contents is comparable to
- A. going through one’s wallet.
- B. handling one’s historical records.
- C. scanning one’s correspondences.
- D. getting into one’s residence.
答案：D
答案句：The court has ruled that police don't violate the Fourth Amendment when they go through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home.
参考译文：法院已裁定，警察在没有搜查令的情况下翻查被捕者的钱包或钱夹并不违反第四修正案。但探索一个人的智能手机更像进入他或她的家。
定位线索：题干“exploring one's phone contents is comparable to”→答案句取自第4段“But exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home”；文中“entering his or her home”对应选项D“getting into one's residence”（“entering”对应“getting into”，“home”对应“residence”）。
解析：答案句明确指出探索智能手机“更像进入他或她的家”，与选项D“进入某人的住所”直接对应。选项A“翻查钱包”是作者否定的类比（“lame argument”），B“处理历史记录”和C“扫描通信”只是手机可能包含的内容，并非作者认为的类比对象，属于偷换概念。
29. In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that
- A. principles are hard to be clearly expressed.
- B. the court is giving police less room for action.
- C. phones are used to store sensitive information.
- D. citizens’ privacy is not effectively protected.
答案：D
答案句：Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.
As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing. In ma
参考译文：美国人应该采取措施保护他们的数字隐私。但将这些敏感信息保存在这些设备上日益成为正常生活的要求。公民仍然有权期望私人文件保持私密，并受到宪法禁止不合理搜查的保护。正如通常的情况，陈述这一原则并不能减轻划定界限的挑战。
定位线索：题干“In Paragraphs 5 and 6, the author shows his concern”→答案句取自第5段和第6段“Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches”和“stating that principle doesn't ease the challenge of line-drawing”；文中“expect private documents to remain private”对应选项D“citizens' privacy is not effectively protected”（隐私可能得不到有效保护）。
解析：作者在第5段指出公民有权期望隐私受保护，但在第6段承认“陈述这一原则并不能减轻划定界限的挑战”，暗示实际执行中隐私可能得不到有效保护，这与选项D一致。选项A“原则难以清晰表达”是对“line-drawing”的曲解（原文指划定界限而非表达原则），B“法院给警察更少行动空间”与原文“allow room for police”相反，C“手机用于存储敏感信息”是事实陈述而非作者的担忧，属于答非所问。
30. Orin Kerr’s comparison is quoted to indicate that
- A. the Constitution should be implemented flexibly.
- B. principles of the Constitution should never be altered.
- C. California’s argument violates principles of the Constitution.
- D. new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution.
答案：D
答案句：But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.
参考译文：但法官们不应全盘接受加利福尼亚州的论点。新的、颠覆性的技术有时要求宪法保护的新应用。法学教授奥林·克尔将21世纪数字信息的爆炸和可获取性与20世纪汽车使用成为生活必需品的确立相比较：当时法官们不得不为乘用车这一新的个人领域制定新规则；现在他们必须理清第四修正案如何适用于数字信息。
定位线索：题干“Orin Kerr's comparison is quoted to indicate”→答案句取自第7段“New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution's protections”和“they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now”；文中“novel applications of the Constitution's protections”对应选项D“new technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution”（“novel applications”对应“reinterpretation”）。
解析：例子本身（克尔比较21世纪数字信息与20世纪汽车）不是答案依据，例子前面的观点句“新的、颠覆性的技术有时要求宪法保护的新应用”和例子后面的“他们必须理清第四修正案如何适用于数字信息”才是关键，正确选项D正是对该观点的同义转述。选项A“宪法应灵活实施”范围过宽（原文特指新技术需要新应用），B“宪法原则不应改变”与原文相反，C“加州论点违反宪法原则”是例子前作者对加州的态度，但非引用克尔的目的，属于答非所问。