1999年考研英语阅读理解全真题解析_新浪教育

1999年考研英语阅读理解全真题解析

http://www.sina.com.cn 2003/07/10 17:01 双博士丛书

　　It's a rough world out there. Step outside and you could break a leg slipping onyour doormat. Light up the stove and you could burn down the house. Luckily, ifthe doormat or stove failed to warn of coming disaster, a successful lawsuit might compensate you for your troubles. Or so the thinking has gone since the early 1980s, when juries began holding more companies liable for their customersmisfortunes.

　　Feeling threatened, companies responded by writing everlonger warning labels, trying to anticipate every possible accident. Today, stepladders carry labels several inches long that warn, among other things, that you might-surprise!-falloff. The label on a child's Batman cape cautions that the toy“does not enableuser to fly”.

　　While warnings are often appropriate and necessary-the dangers of drug interactions, for example-and many are required by state or federal regulations, it isn't clear that they actually protect the manufacturers and sellers from liabilityif a customer is injured. About 50 percent of the companies lose when injured customers take them to court.

　　Now the tide appears to be turning. As personal injury claims continue as before, some courts are beginning to side with defendants, especially in casesswheresawarning label probably wouldn't have changed anything. In May, Julie Nimmons, president of Schutt Sports in Illinois, successfully fought a lawsuit involving afootball player who was paralyzed in a game while wearing a Schutt helmet.“We're really sorry he has become paralyzed, but helmets aren't designed to preventthose kinds of injuries,”says Nimmons. The jury agreed that the nature of thegame, not the helmet, was the reason for the athlete's injury. At the same time, the American Law Institute-asgroupsof judges, lawyers, and academics whose recommendations carry substantial weight-issued new guidelines for tort law stating that companies need not warn customers of obvious dangers or bombard them witha lengthy list of possible ones.“Important information can get buried in a sea of trivialities,”says a law professor at Cornell Law School who helped draftthe new guidelines. If the moderate end of the legal community has its way, theinformation on products might actually be provided for the benefit of customersand not as protection against legal liability.

　　9. What were things like in the 1980s when accidents happened?

　　A. Customers might be relieved of their disasters through lawsuits.

　　B. Injured customers could expect protection from the legal system.

　　C. Companies would avoid being sued by providing new warnings.

　　D. Juries tended to find fault with the compensations companies promised.

　　10. Manufacturers as mentioned in the passage tend to.

　　A. satisfy customers by writing long warnings on products

　　B. become honest in describing the inadequacies of their products

　　C. make the best use of labels to avoid legal liability

　　D. feel obliged to view customers safety as their first concern

　　11. The case of Schutt helmet demonstrated that.

　　A. some injury claims were no longer supported by law

　　B. helmets were not designed to prevent injuries

　　C. product labels would eventually be discarded

　　D. some sports games might lose popularity with athletes

　　12. The author's attitude towards the issue seems to be.

　　A. biasedB. indifferentC. puzzlingD. objective

　　9. B细节理解题。本题为细节推断题，用“What”引出问题，后需要接具体的内容，搜索全文我们可以从本文第一段第二句和第三句中找到答案，这两句话“幸运的是：如果门前擦鞋垫或炉灶上没有警告可能发生的灾难的字样，则成功的一项法律诉讼可能赔偿你的损失。或许，这种想法在20世纪80年代初已开始起作用，那时陪审团成员要求更多的公司应对他们的用户的不幸负责”与B答案“受伤的用户可以指望得到法律制度的保护”相符合，故答案为B。A干扰性很强，意为“消费者可以通过法律诉讼摆脱灾难”。其实，灾难已经发生，是无法摆脱的。可见，A与事实不符，不能入选。C“生产商会通过提供新的提示而免遭起诉”和D“陪审团往往对公司承诺的补偿吹毛求疵，”均与原意不符。

　　10. C细节理解题。由Line 5“Feeling threatened,…possible accident.”推断可知答案为C。选项A易排除，因为公司不是为了“satisfy”顾客，而是“Feeling threatened”，即它是害怕为顾客承担法律责任。

　　11. A典型的“举例”题型，一般来说，例子是为了说明前面的观点的。第4段第1句指出，现在潮流似乎正在发生变化，法院开始站到被告一边，接着以“头盔”为例说明伤害事故与产品本身毫无关系，故陪审团以为，法律不能支持这样的伤害索赔。可见A符合此意。

　　12. D

　　作者态度题。本文作者只是客观地叙述事情刚开始是怎么样的，后来又发生了什么样的变化，没有掺入个人的观点。故为D。

　　译文

　　外面的世界是危险的。如果你走出去，你有可能滑倒在门口的地垫上，摔伤一条腿。如果你点燃炉灶，你有可能烧毁整幢房子。如果地垫或炉灶上没有警告字样告诉你可能发生的危险，你或许可以幸运地就自己所受的伤害通过法律诉讼，成功地获得赔偿。在20世纪80年代初期之前，陪审团开始认为更多的公司应该对他们的消费者遭受的不幸负责，也许自那时起人们就不再这样粗略地认为。

　　公司感到(赔偿的)威胁，便做出反应，写出的警告标签越来越冗长，以预测任何可能出现的事故。结果，现在的梯子上的警告标签达几英寸长，除了警告你可能发生其他的意外之外，还警告你有可能摔下来，这种警告真是莫名其妙；如儿童的蝙蝠侠玩具的斗篷上也警告说：本玩具“并不能使使用者飞行”。

　　虽然警示语常常是合理的和必要的，如有关药物的副作用可能产生的危害的警示语，而且许多是州或联邦法律要求的。但是，如果消费者受伤，这些警示语能否保护产销商免于责任呢？这还很难讲。因为当受伤的消费者把公司告到法庭上时，大约有50%的公司会输掉官司。

　　现在看来这种趋势正在有所改变。尽管人们依然还为产品所造成的人身伤害提出索赔，但有些法院已开始站在被告这一边，特别是处理那些即便是有警示语也无法避免伤害的案例时。五月份(美国)伊利斯州的Schutt体育公司被告，一位橄榄球队员戴了Schutt体育公司生产的头盔踢球时受伤瘫痪。该公司总裁Julie Nimmmons先生辩解道，“他瘫痪了我们非常难过，但是这种头盔设计时并不是用来防止这种伤害的”。陪审团也认为造成球员受伤的不是头盔，而是橄榄球运动本身(危险性)。公司因此胜诉。同时，美国法学会——该组织由一群举足轻重的法官、律师和学者组成——宣布的新民事侵害法中的纲要指出：公司没有必要向消费者警告显而易见的危险，或者就可能产生的危险向他们提供一个长长的单子。康奈尔大学法学院的一位参与新纲要起草的法学教授说，“重要的信息可能被埋没在浩如烟海的细节里。”如果该法律组织的这一不太过分的要求能得以实行，产品上提供的警示信息实际上可能是用来保护消费者利益的，而不仅仅是为了保护公司免除法律责任。

【评论】【推荐】【大中小】【打印】【关闭】

新闻查询
关键词一关键词二