检索式定向阅读法第四讲长

GRE阅读检索式定向阅读法长阅主讲老师老师标注内容优篇目长460字段落多3-5阅读题阅读阅读题阅读回答1123STEP1.读出题考主旨与结构考局部细节读出可定位的词出现数目少的名词（陌生概念，人名，地名，时间表示数量的词Majority,Few,Little,表示特别时间点的UntilBeforeAfterPriorMark做题顺好拿分的题优先事实信息题，类比题，态度题，词汇信息目的保证1Thepassageisprimarilyconcerned判定全文主旨短文章主严

ArgumentvsFactvs1长文章主 ItcanbeinferredfromthepassagethattheauthorbelievesthatwhichofthefollowingistrueofpaintingandarchitectureoftheBaroqueera?判定为：推断有效定位词：名词，时间Painting/architectureoftheBaroque推断题的三种正向推原文的信息改写（找-回-改特殊

Afew(F) Majority(NOTF)since1970s(F)after1970s(NOTF) 长文章中的偶有多段落定后段讲用途Theauthor’smentionofFlorentinepaintingservesinthecontextofthepassagetosupportwhichofthefollowingassertions?判定题型：信息目可定位Florentine A换Thepassagesuggestswhichofthefollowingaboutcited判定为：推断题suggest,infer,有效定位词把文章首段必读（哪个新概念是真正的讨论对象各段论态把文章读以段落总结法简化长文举例可跳，重点在举例目并列段FirstSecondThird可在做题时再提前预+段内新旧陌生名词切换的地方+态度评价次段首句和上段关系特殊的语言现象：，，修正常见的句间关系：转折让步因果强调文艺复兴建筑（101篇PassageAprimaryvalueinearlytwentieth-centuryModernistarchitecturaltheorywasthatof“truthtomaterials”,thatis,itwasessentialthatabuilding’sdesignexpressthe“natural”characterofthebuildingmaterials.ThisemphasiswouldhavethearchitectsoftheItalianRenaissance(sixteenthcentury),aperiodwidelyregardedastheapexofarchitecturalachievement,forRenaissancearchitects’designsweredeterminedonlyminimallybythematerialsemployed.ThediversityofItaly’snaturalresourcesprovidedRenaissancearchitectswithawidevarietyofbuildingmaterials.ThebuildersofthePittiPalace(1558-1570)usedgreatblocksofTuscanstone,justasEtruscanslivinginthesamepartofItalyhaddonesome Etruscanstyle,itmightbesaidthattheirmaterialsdeterminedtheirstyle,sinceEtruscanstylematchedthemassive,stark,solidcharacterofthestone.Butthesesamematerials,whichsosuitedthemassiveEtruscanstyle,wereeffectivelyusedbytheFlorentineRenaissancetocreatethemostdelicateandgracefulofstyles.（待续

16thCenturyMatch/EffectivelyAsimilarexampleofidenticalmaterialsusedincontrastingstylescharacterizesthetreatmentofRomantravertinemarble.WhenBaroquearchitectsofseventeenth-centuryRomedesiredamassiveandsolidmonumentaleffect,theyturnedtotravertinemarble,whose“naturaleffect”is,indeed,thatofspaciousbreadthandlofty,smoothlyroundedsurfaces.YetduringtheRenaissance,thissamematerialhadbeenusedagainstits“nature,”intheFlorentinetraditionofsharplycarveddetail.

AsimilarexampleIdenticalmaterialsContrastingstyles引出17世纪BaroqueItalianRenaissancearchitecturewasshapedlessbythe“nature”ofthematerialsathandthanbytheicmilieuofRenaissanceItaly,whichincludedpaintingandsculptureaswellasarchitecture.WhileRomantravertinemarblemayhavelentitselftofinecarving,theFlorentinepassionforfinedetailisnolessmarkedinFlorentineRenaissancepaintingthaninFlorentineRenaissancearchitecture.Similarly,inthenextcentury,theemphasisonshadingandcorporealdensityinBaroquepaintingmirroredtheuseofRomantravertinemarbleinBaroquearchitecturetocreatebroadshadowandpowerfulmasses.

LessbyAthanbyAandBaswellasCLessbyAthanbyBNolessthanTheingenuityofRenaissancearchitectsextendedmerelyusingamaterialinawaynotsuggestedbyitsoutwardnaturalappearance.Iftheyconceivedadesignthatcalledforacertainmaterialeithertooexpensiveordifficulttoworkwith,theymadenoscrupleaboutimitatingthatmaterial.Theirmarblesandtheirstonesareoftenactuallypaintedstucco.Whentheblocksofmasonrywithwhichtheybuiltwerenotinscalewiththeprojectedscheme,therealjointswereconcealedandfalseonesintroduced.Norwerethesepracticesconfined,assomescholarsinsist,tothelaterandsupposedlydecadentphasesoftheartMaterial,then,wasutterlysubservienttostyle.20th主流理论：建筑设计材16thEgEtruscans20EgBaroque17世纪TEg.PittiEgT-marbleagainstitsnature17Baroquemirrorassageisprimarilyconcerned iningthedifferencesinqualityamongdifferentofbuildingB.discussingthedifferencesamongEtruscan,FlorentineRenaissance,andRomanBaroquearchitectureC.describinghowdifferentmaterialsinfluencedindifferentD.describingthemannerinwhichRenaissancearchitectsoftenresortedtoartificialmaterialsandillusionisticeffectsE.demonstratingtheattitudeofsixteenth-andseventeenth-centuryItalianarchitectstowardtheuseofbuildingmaterials艺术风格和材料的beinferredfromthepassagethattheauthorbelievesthatwhichofthefollowingistrueofpaintingandarchitectureoftheBaroqueera?A.Bothemphasizethe“natural”useofB.BotharederivedfromtheFlorentineRenaissanceC.Bothhavebeenoverlookedbytwentieth-D.TheyhavecertainvisualfeaturesinE.TheyillustratethedegenerationofaA.有瑕疵,建筑风格是一致的，但是绘画风格没有明确表明，因而不算完uthor’smentionofFlorentinepaintingservesinthecontextofpassagetosupportwhichofthefollowingonstraintsthatoperateinarchitecturearedifferentfromthoseoperateinentinearchitecturalstylewasnotdeterminedbythenatureoftheavailablemarble.lorentineRenaissanceperiodwasaperiodinwhichtheotherartsachievedthesamedistinctionasdidarchitecture.nicaladvancesinalloftheartsoftheFlorentinedeterminedthestylisticqualitiesofthosepreferencesofstyledonotmanifestthemselvesinthesamewaysindifferentarts.assagesuggestswhichofthefollowingaboutthecited“scholars”?A.TheybelievethatadecadentphaseischaracteristicofanysignificanticB.TheyrejectthepopularviewoftheRenaissanceastheapexofC.Theybelievethatavigorousandhealthyarchitecturewouldnotusuallyemployfalsesurfacesorimitationbuildingmaterials.D.TheyrepresentthemainstreamincriticalandhistoricalthoughtaboutFlorentineE.Theyhavefocusedonsuchtechnicalmattersasthecostofbuildingmaterialsratherthanon icconcerns.Norwerethesepracticesconfined,assomescholarsinsist,tothelaterandsupposedlydecadentphasesoftheartMaterial,then,wasutterlysubservienttostyle.TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,ratifiedin1868,prohibitsstate entsfro denyingcitizensthe“equalprotectionofthelaws.”Althoughprecisely hattheframersoftheamendmentmeantbythisequalprotectionclauseremainsunclear,allinterpretersagreethattheframers’immediateobjectivewastoprovideaconstitutionalwarrantfortheCivilRightsActof1866,whichguaranteedthecitizenshipofall sbornintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttoUnitedStatesjurisdiction.Thisdeclaration,whichwasechoedinthetextoftheFourteenthAmendment,wasdesignedprimarilytocountertheSupremeCourt’srulinginDredScottv.SandfordthatBlackpeopleintheUnitedStatescouldbedeniedcitizenship.Theactwasvetoedby AndrewJohnson,whoarguedthattheThirteenthAmendment,whichabolishedslavery,didnotprovideCongresswiththeauthoritytoextendcitizenshipandequalprotectiontothe dslaves.AlthoughCongresspromptlyoverrodeJohnson’sveto,supportersoftheactsoughttoensureitsconstitutionalfoundationswiththepassageoftheFourteenthThebroadlanguageoftheamendmentstronglysuggeststhatitsframerswereproposingtowriteintotheConstitutionnotalaundrylistofspecificcivilrightsbutaprincipleofequalcitizenshipthatforbidsorganizedsocietyfromtreatinganyindividualasamemberofaninferiorclass.Yetforthefirsteightdecadesoftheamendment’sexistence,theSupremeCourt’sinterpretationoftheamendmentbetrayedthisidealofequality.IntheCivilRightsCasesof1883,forexample,theCourtinventedthe“stateaction”limitation,whichassertsthat“private”decisionsbyownersofpublic modationsandothercommercialbusinesstosegregatetheirfacilitiesareinsulatedformthereachoftheFourteenthAmendment’sguaranteeofequalprotectionunderthelaw.AftertheSecondWorldWar,ajudicialclimatemorehospitabletoequalprotectionclaimsculminatedintheSupremeCourt;srulinginBrownv.BoardofEducationthatraciallysegregatedschoolsviolatedtheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.TwodoctrinesembracedbytheSupremeCourtduringthisperiodextendedtheamendment’sreach.First,theCourtrequiredespeciallystrictscrutinyoflegislationthatemployeda“ classification,”meaningdiscriminationagainstagroupongroundsthatcouldbeconstruedasracial.ThisdoctrinehasbroadenedtheapplicationoftheFourteenthAmendmenttoother,nonracialformsofdiscrimination,forwhilesomejusticeshaverefusedtofindanylegislativeclassificationotherthanracetobeconstitutionallydisfavored,mosthavebeenreceptivetoargumentsthatatleastsomenonracialdiscriminations,ualdiscriminationinparticular,are“ anddeservethisheightenedscrutinybythecourts.Second,theCourtrelaxedthestateactionlimitationontheFourteenthAmendment,bringingnewformsofprivateconductwithintheamendment’sreach.司法权 权的制StateAction权对司法权的制衡CivilRightsActof1.第十 2.第十 3.第十 ①TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,ratifiedin1868,prohibits ernments fromdenyingcitizens the laws.”②Althoughpreciselywhattheframersoftheamendmentmeantbythisequalprotectionclauseremains constitutionalwarrantfortheCivilRightsActof1866,whichguaranteedthecitizenshipofallsbornintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttoUnitedStatesjurisdiction.③Thisdeclaration,whichwasechoedinthetextoftheFourteenthAmendment,wasdesignedprimarilytocountertheSupremeCourt’srulinginDredScottv.SandfordthatBlackpeopleintheUnitedStatescouldbedeniedcitizenship.④Theactwasvetoedby AndrewJohnson,whoarguedthattheThirteenthAmendment,whichabolishedslavery,didnotprovideCongresswiththeauthoritytoextendcitizenshipandequalprotectiontothedslaves.⑤AlthoughCongresspromptlyoverrodeJohnson’sveto,supportersoftheactsoughttoensureitsconstitutionalfoundationswiththepassageoftheFourteenthAmendment.第 ①TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,ratifiedin1868,prohibits ernmentsfromdenyigcitizeste“e rotectionofthelaws.”②lthoughpreciselywhattheframersoftheamendmentmeantbythisequalprotectionclauseremainsunclear,allinterpretersagreethattheframers’immediateobjectivewastoprovideaconstitutionalwarrantfortheCivilRightsActof1866,whichguaranteedthecitizenshipofallsbornintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttoUnitedStatesjurisdiction.③ThiswhichwasechoedinthetextoftheFourteenthAmendment,wasdesignedprimarilytocountertheSupremeCourt’srulinginDredScottv.SandfordthatBlackpeopleintheUnitedStatescouldbedeniedcitizenship.④Theactwasvetoedby AndrewJohnson,whoarguedthattheThirteenthAmendment,whichabolishedslavery,didnotprovideCongresswiththeauthoritytoextendcitizenshipandequalprotectiontothe dslaves.⑤AlthoughCongresspromptlyoverrodeJohnson’sveto,supportersoftheactsoughttoensureitsconstitutionalfoundationswiththepassageoftheFourteenthAmendment. ①TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,ratifiedin1868,prohibitsstate ernmentsfromdenyingcitizensthe“equalprotectionofthe1868年通过 第十 们取消公民 保权 ②Althoughpreciselywhattheframersoftheamendmentmeantbythisequalprotectionclauseremainsunclear,allinterpretersagreethattheframers’immediateobjectivewastoprovideaconstitutionalwarrantfortheCivilRightsActof1866,whichguaranteedthecitizenshipofall sbornintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttoUnitedStatesjurisdiction尽管第十四的起草意图并不明确，但所有人都人为它旨在为1868年通过的法案提供保障，该法案似的所有在出生的人有美国公民的并受到司法管辖。 ③Thisdeclaration,whichwasechoedinthetextoftheFourteenthAmendment,wasdesignedprimarilytocountertheSupremeCourt’srulinginDredScottv.SandfordthatBlackpeopleintheUnitedStatescouldbedenied这个宣称是为 没 ④Theactwasvetoedby AndrewJohnson,whoarguedthattheThirteenthAmendment,whichabolishedslavery,didnotprovideCongresswiththeauthoritytoextendcitizenshipandequalprotectiontothe dslaves.⑤AlthoughCongresspromptlyoverrodeJohnson’sveto,supportersoftheactsoughttoensureitsconstitutionalfoundationswiththepassageoftheFourteenthAmendment.这个法案被总统AndrewJohnson否决了，他认为虽然第十三 尽 会最终使得Johnson的否决无效，支持者需要为该法案找 持先有DredScottv.Sandford中被denied然后机构发布CivilRightsActof直接CivilRightsAct ①ThebroadlanguageoftheamendmentstronglysuggeststhatitsframerswereproposingtowriteintotheConstitutionnotalaundrylistofspecificcivilrightsbutaprincipleofequalcitizenshipthatforbidsorganizedsocietyfromtreatinganyindividualasamemberofaninferiorclass.②Yetforthefirsteightdecadesoftheamendment’sexistence,theSupremeCourt’sinterpretationoftheamendmentbetrayedthisidealofequality.③IntheCivilRightsCasesof1883,forexample,theCourtinventedthe“stateaction”limitation,whichassertsthat“private”decisionsbyownersofpublicmodationsandothercommercialbusinesstosegregatetheirfacilitiesareinsulatedformthereachoftheFourteenthAmendment’sguaranteeofequalprotectionunderthelaw. ①ThebroadlanguageoftheamendmentstronglysuggeststhatitsframerswereproposingtowriteintotheConstitutionnotalaundrylistofspecificcivilrightsbutaprincipleofequalcitizenshipthatforbidsorganizedsocietyfromtreatinganyindividualasamemberofaninferiorclass. ②Yetforthefirsteightdecadesoftheamendment’sexistence,theCourt’sinterpretationoftheamendmentbetrayedthisidealof但是 存在的前80年里 的解 则 ③IntheCivilRightsCasesof1883,forexample,theCourtinventedthe“stateaction”limitation,whichassertsthat“private”decisionsbyownersofpublic othercommercialbusinesstosegregatetheirfacilitiesareinsulatedformthereachoftheFourteenthAmendment’sguaranteeofequalprotectionunderthelaw. action”limitation。该限制：公 我承认 ，但是还 但是第 ①AftertheSecondWorldWar,ajudicialclimatemorehospitabletoequalprotectionclaimsculminatedintheSupremeCourt;srulinginBrownv.BoardofEducationthatraciallysegregatedschoolsviolatedtheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.②TwodoctrinesembracedbytheSupremeCourtduringthisperiodextendedtheamendment’sreach.③First,theCourtrequiredespeciallystrictscrutinyoflegislationthatemployeda meaningdiscriminationagainstagroupongroundsthatcouldbeconstruedasracial.④ThisdoctrinehasbroadenedtheapplicationoftheFourteenthAmendmenttoother,nonracialformsofdiscrimination,forwhilesomejusticeshaverefusedtofindanylegislativeclassificationotherthanracetobeconstitutionallydisfavored,mosthavebeenreceptivetoargumentsthatatleastsomenonracialdiscriminations, ualdiscriminationinparticular,are“ ”anddeservethisheightenedscrutinybythecourts.⑤Second,theCourtrelaxedthestateactionlimitationontheFourteenthAmendment,bringingnewformsofprivateconductwithintheamendment’sreach.学校 第一，对的严格-对任何一个群体的都可以被看作种 WhichofthefollowingbestdescribesthemainideaoftheBypresentingalistofspecificrights,framersoftheFourteenthAmendmentwereattemptingtoprovideaconstitutionalbasisforbroadjudicialprotectionoftheprincipleofequalcitizenshipOnlyaftertheSupremeCourtadoptedtheclassificationapproachtoreviewingpotentiallydiscriminationlegislationwastheapplicabilityoftheFourteenthAmendmentextendedtoinclude NotuntilaftertheSecondWorldWardidtheSupremeCourtbegintointerprettheFourteenthAmendmentinamannerconsistentwiththeprincipleofequalcitizenshipthatitexpress.InterpretersoftheFourteenthAmendmenthaveyettoreachwithregardtowhatitsframersmeantbytheequalprotectionAlthoughthereluctanceofjudgestoextendthereachoftheFourteenthAmendmenttononracialdiscriminationhasbetrayedtheprincipleofequalcitizenship,theSupremeCourt’suseofthestateactionlimitationtoinsulateprivateactivityfrotheamendment’sreachhasbeenmoreharmful.CWhichofthefollowingbestdescribesthemainideaoftheBypresentingalistofspecificrightsframersoftheFourteenthAmendmentwereattemptingtoprovideaconstitutionalbasisforbroadjudicialprotectionoftheprincipleofequalcitizenship和原文事实相反OnlyaftertheSupremeCourtadoptedthe classificationapproachtoreviewingpotentiallydiscriminationlegislationwastheapplicabilityoftheFourteenthAmendmentextendedtoinclude ualdiscrimination程度错（两个扩展）意一下allonly,most…NotuntilaftertheSecondWorldWardidtheSupremeCourtbegintointerprettheFourteenthAmendmentinamannerconsistentwiththeprincipleofequalcitizenshipthatitexpress.InterpretersoftheFourteenthAmendmenthaveyettoreachconsensusregardtowhatitsframersmeantbytheequalprotectionclause一致认为AlthoughthereluctanceofjudgestoextendthereachoftheFourteenthAmendmenttononracialdiscriminationhasbetrayedtheprincipleofequalcitizenship,theSupremeCourt’suseofthestateactionlimitationtoinsulateprivateactivityfortheamendment’sreachhasbeenmoreharmful.比较错Although是在讲第三段的内容，后半个分句讲解第二段内容，错位混ThepassagesuggeststhattheprincipleeffectofthestateactionlimitationwasallowsomediscriminatorypracticestocontinueunimpededbytheinfluencetheSupremeCourt’srulinginBrownv.BoardofprovideexpandedguidelinesdescribingprohibitedprohibitstatesfromenactinglawsthatviolatedtheintentoftheCivilRightsofshiftto ernmenttheresponsibilityforenmentoflawsdiscriminatory②Yetforthefirsteightdecadesoftheamendment’sexistence,theSupremeCourt’sinterpretationoftheamendmentbetrayedthisidealofequality.③IntheCivilRightsCasesof1883,forexample,theCourtinventedthe“stateaction”limitation,whichassertsthat“private”decisionsbyownersofpublic modationsandothercommercialbusinesstosegregatetheirfacilitiesareinsulatedformthereachoftheFourteenthAmendment’sguaranteeofequalprotectionunderthelaw.StateactionLimitation允许了不行为的存AThepassagesuggeststhattheprincipleeffectofthestateactionlimitationwastoprovideexpandedguidelinesdescribingprohibitedactions（允许了一些行为的存在）相prohibitstatesfromenactinglawsthatviolatedtheintentoftheCivilRightsActof1866shifttostate ernmenttheresponsibilityforen mentoflawsprohibitingdiscriminatoryTheauthor’spositionregardingtheintentoftheframersoftheFourteenthAmendmentwouldbemostseriouslyunderminedifwhichofthefollowingweretrue?TheframershadanticipatedstateactionlimitationsastheyaredescribedintheTheframershadmerelysoughttopreventdiscriminatoryactsbyfederalTheframerswereconcernedthatthecivilrightsactof1866wouldbeoverturnedbyTheframerswereawarethatthephrase“equalprotectionofthelaws”hadTheframersbelievedthatracialaswellasnon-racialformsofdiscriminationwere①TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,ratifiedin1868,prohibitsstateernmentsfromdenyingcitizensthe“equalprotectionofthelaws.”②Althoughpreciselywhattheframersoftheamendmentmeantbythisequalprotectionclauseremainsunclear,allinterpretersagreethattheframers’immediateobjectivewastoprovideaconstitutionalwarrantfortheCivilRightsActof1866,whichguaranteedthecitizenshipofall sbornintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttoUnitedStatesjurisdiction.③Thisdeclaration,whichwasechoedinthetextoftheFourteenthAmendment,wasdesignedprimarilytocountertheSupremeCourt’srulinginDredScottv.SandfordthatBlackpeopleintheUnitedStatescouldbedeniedcitizenship.④TheactwasvetoedbyAndrewJohnson,whoarguedthattheThirteenthAmendment,whichabolishedslavery,didnotprovideCongresswiththeauthoritytoextendcitizenshipandequalprotectiontothe dslaves.⑤AlthoughCongresspromptlyoverrodeJohnson’sveto,supportersoftheactsoughttoensureitsconstitutionalfoundationswithpassageoftheFourteenthBTheauthor’spositionregardingtheintentoftheframersoftheFourteenthAmendmentwouldbemostseriouslyunderminedifwhichofthefollowingweretrue?TheframershadanticipatedstateactionlimitationsastheyaredescribedintheTheframershadmerelysoughttopreventdiscriminatoryactsbyfederalTheframerswereconcernedthatthecivilrightsactof1866wouldbeoverturnedbyTheframerswereawarethatthephrase“equalprotectionofthelaws”hadTheframersbelievedthatracialaswellasnon-racialformsofdiscriminationwereAccordingtothepassage,theoriginalproponentsoftheFourteenthAmendmentprimarilyconcerneddetailingtherightsaffordedbytheprincipleofequalprovidingsupportintheConstitutionforequalprotectionforallcitizensoftheclosingaloopholethatcouldbeusedtodenyindividualstherighttosueforenoftheircivilassertingthatthecivilrightsprotectbytheConstitutionincludednonracialaswellasracialgrantingstateernmentbroaderdiscretionininterpretingtheCivilRightsActin①TheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,ratifiedin1868,prohibits ernmentsfromdenyingcitizensthe“equalprotectionofthelaws.”②Althoughpreciselywhattheframersoftheamendmentmeantbythisequalprotectionclauseremainsunclear,allinterpretersagreethattheframers’immediateobjectivewastoprovideaconstitutionalwarrantfortheCivilRightsActof1866,whichguaranteedthecitizenshipofallsbornintheUnitedStatesandsubjecttoUnitedStatesjurisdiction.③Thisdeclaration,whichwasechoedinthetextoftheFourteenthAmendment,wasdesignedprimarilytocountertheSupremeCourt’srulinginDredScottv.SandfordthatBlackpeopleintheUnitedStatescouldbedeniedcitizenship.④TheactwasvetoedbyAndrewJohnson,whoarguedthattheThirteenthAmendment,whichabolishedslavery,didnotprovideCongresswiththeauthoritytoextendcitizenshipandequalprotectiontothedslaves.⑤AlthoughCongresspromptlyoverrodeJohnson’sveto,supportersoftheactsoughttoensureitsconstitutionalfoundationswiththepassageoftheFourteenthAmendment.BAccordingtothepassage,theoriginalproponentsoftheFourteenthAmendmentprimarilyconcerneddetailingtherightsaffordedbytheprincipleofequalprovidingsupportintheConstitutionforequalprotectionforallcitizensoftheclosingaloopholethatcouldbeusedtodenyindividualstherighttosueforenoftheircivilassertingthatthecivilrightsprotectbytheConstitutionincludednonracialaswellasracialgrantingstateernmentbroaderdiscretionininterpretingtheCivilRightsActinTheauthorimpliesthattheFourteenthAmendmentmightnothavebeenenactedcongress’authoritywithregardtolegislatingcivilrightshadnotbeentheframershasanticipatedtheSupremeCourtsrulinginBrownv.Boardoftheframershadbelievedthatitwouldbeusedindecidingcasesofdiscriminationmoststateernmentshadbeenwillingtoprotectcitizens’civilitsessentialelementshadnotbeenimplicitintheThirteenthATheauthorimpliesthattheFourteenthAmendmentmightnothavebeenenactedcongress’authoritywithregardtolegislatingcivilrightshadnotbeentheframershasanticipatedtheSupremeCourtsrulinginBrownv.Boardoftheframershadbelievedthatitwouldbeusedindecidingcasesofdiscriminationmoststateernmentshadbeenwillingtoprotectcitizens’civilitsessentialelementshadnotbeenimplicitintheThirteenthAccordingtothepassage,whichofthefollowingmostaccurayindicatesthesequenceoftheeventslistedcivilrightsactofFourteenthVetobyA.ⅠⅡⅢB.ⅠⅣⅡC.ⅠⅣⅢD.ⅡⅠⅣE.ⅢⅡⅠDAccordingtothepassage,whichofthefollowingmostaccurayindicatesthesequenceoftheeventslistedcivilrightsactofFourteenthVetobyA.ⅠⅡⅢB.ⅠⅣⅡC.ⅠⅣⅢD.ⅡⅠⅣE.ⅢⅡⅠWhichofthefollowingcanbeinferredaboutthesecondofthetwodoctrinesreferredinlines39-41oftheItcausedsomejusticetorulethatalltypesofdiscriminationareprohibitedbytheItshiftedthefocusoftheSupremeCourtfromracialtononracialItnarrowedtheconcernoftheSupremeCourttolegislationthatemployedaItcausedlegislatorswhowerewritingnewlegislationtorejectlanguagethatcouldbeconstruedaspermittingracialdiscrimination.ItmadeitmoredifficultforcommercialbusinesstopracticeracialEWhichofthefollowingcanbeinferredaboutthesecondofthetwodoctrinesreferredinlines39-41oftheItcausedsomejusticetorulethatalltypesofdiscriminationareprohibitedbytheItshiftedthefocusoftheSupremeCourtfromracialtononracialItnarrowedtheconcernoftheSupremeCourttolegislationthatemployedaItcausedlegislatorswhowerewritingnewlegislationtorejectlanguagethatcouldbeconstruedaspermittingracialdiscrimination.Itmadeitmoredifficultforcommercialbusinesstopracticeracial新墨西哥州殖民建筑（101篇PassageArchitecturalmorphologyisthestudyofhowshiftingculturalandenvironmentalconditionsproducechangesinanarchitecturalform.WhenappliedtothemissionchurchesofNewMexicoseventeenth-andeighteenth-centurySpanishcolonialarchitectureinwhatisnowthesouthwesternUnitedStates,architecturalmorphologyrevealsmuchabouthowNativeAmericanculturetransformedthetraditionalEuropeanchurcharchitectureoftheSpanishmissionarieswhohopedtoconvertNativeAmericanstoManystudiesofthesemissionchurcheshavecarefullyedthehistoryanddesignoftheiruniquearchitecturalform,mostattributethechurches’radicaldeparturefromtheirsixteenth-centuryEuropeanpredecessorstolocalclimateandaless-mechanizedbuildingtechnology.Certainly,thelimitationsimposedbymanuallaborandthelocallyavailablematerialsofmud-brickandtimbernecessitatedadivergencefromtheoriginalEuropeanchurchmodel.However,theemergenceofachurchformsuitedtolifeintheSouthwestwasrootedinsomethingmorefundamentalthanmaterialandtechnique.ThenewarchitectureresultedfromculturalsinboththeSpanishcolonialandindigenousNativeAmericansocieties,eachwithcompetingideasaboutformandspaceanddifferentwaysofconveyingtheseideassymbolically.Forexample,themissionchurchessharecertainspatialqualitieswiththeindigenouskiva,around,partlysubterraneanroomusedbymanySouthwestNativeAmericancommunitiesforimportantrituals.Likethekivaitwasintendedtorece,thetypicalmissionchurchhadthickwallsofadobe(sun-driedearthandstraw),abeaten-earthfloor,andoneortwosmallwindows.IndeferencetoEuropeancustom,theceilingsofthesechurcheswerehigherthanthoseofthetraditionalkiva.However,withthelimitedlightingaffordedbytheirfewsmallwindows,thesechurchesstillsuggestthekiva'scharacteristicallylow,boxlike,earth-hugginginterior.Thus,althoughpragmaticfactorsofconstructionmayhavecontributedtotheshapeofthemissionchurches,asearlierstudiessuggest,theprovisionofasacredspaceconsistentwithindigenoustraditionsmayalsohavebeenanimportantconsiderationintheirdesign.TheviabilityofthekivaitselfinSpanishmissionsettlementshasalsobeenunderestimatedbyhistorians.standingkivasdiscoveredintheruinsofEuropean-stylemissionarycommunitieshavebeenexinedbysomehistoriansasexamplesof“superposition”.Underthistheory,ChristiandominationoverindigenousfaithsisdramatizedbysurroundingthekivawithChristianbuildings.However,asJamesIveypointsout,s