新GRE小短文阅读练习题十三

会计考友

13  The Supreme Court is no longer able to keep pace with the tremendous
number of cases it agrees to decide.  The Court schedules and hears
160  hours of oral argument each year, and 108 hours of next year's term
will be taken up by cases left over from this year.  Certainly the Court
cannot be asked to increase its already burdensome hours.  The most
reasonable long-range solution to this problem is to allow the Court to
8 M! i4 }: `; {& W0 Q- N- i decide many cases without hearing oral argument; in this way the Court
might eventually increase dramatically the number of cases it decides
7 L; \% k" H/ l7 O8 Q$ @ each year.

" E- e2 l5 U1 |+ `2 R5 g2 y" q5 Q Which of the following, if true, could best be used to argue against the
2 n% b/ p. H! z) H) m3 h- x9 D' x feasibility of the solution suggested?
8 U% A4 s7 }9 n9 R  c4 r" O2 y8 b
      The time the Court spends hearing oral argument is only a small
        part of the total time it spends deciding a case.  
      The Court cannot legitimately avoid hearing oral argument in any
        case le  ft over from last year.  
5 g3 V3 G  k8 k1 P# @      Most authorities agree that  160  hours of oral argument is the
        maximum number that the Court can handle per year.  
      Even now the Court decides a small number of cases without
        hearing oral argument.  
1 s8 S3 ?6 r% ?& h      In many cases, the delay of a hearing for a full year can be
7 E. G* p1 r% p5 u: v2 \, m$ Y0 x3 M        extremely expensive to the parties involved.