1999年P(guān)assage l
It's a rough world out there. Step outside and you could break a leg slipping on your doormat. Light up the stove and you could burn down the house. Luckily, if the 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! --fall off. The label on a child's Batman cape cautions that the toy "does not enable user 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 liability if 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 cases where a warning label probably wouldn't have changed anything. In May, Julie Nimmons, president of Schutt Sports in Illinois, successfully fought a lawsuit involving a football 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 prevent those kinds of injuries, "says Nimmons. The jury agreed that the nature of the game, not the helmet, was the reason for the athlete's injury. At the same time, the American Law Institute--a group of 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 with a 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 draft the new guidelines. If the moderate end of the legal community has its way, the information on products might actually be provided for the benefit of customers and not as protection against legal liability.
51. What were things like in 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.
[答案] B
[解題思路]
本題的對(duì)應(yīng)信息在文章的第一段最后一句話"Or so the thinking has gone since the early 1980s, when juries began holding more companies liable for their customers' misfortunes"（大約自80年代初以來(lái)這種想法開(kāi)始日漸流行，因?yàn)閺哪菚r(shí)起陪審團(tuán)開(kāi)始認(rèn)為更多的公司應(yīng)對(duì)其顧客所遭受的不幸負(fù)責(zé)），因此B選項(xiàng)符合題意。C和D選項(xiàng)與該句的意思不符。至于A選項(xiàng)，該段第四句提到"Luckily, if the doormat or stove failed to warn of coming disaster, a successful lawsuit might compensate you for your troubles"（但是假如門(mén)墊或爐灶上沒(méi)有警示語(yǔ)告訴你可能發(fā)生的危害，你或許可以就自己所受的傷害通過(guò)法律訴訟，成功地獲得賠償），但獲得賠償并不意味著A選項(xiàng)的relieved of their disasters（免除了他們的災(zāi)難），因?yàn)闊o(wú)論如何賠償都是事后的，災(zāi)難已經(jīng)發(fā)生了、無(wú)需通過(guò)賠償避免。
[題目譯文]
在20世紀(jì)80年代的時(shí)候，如果發(fā)生事故會(huì)怎么樣？
[A] 消費(fèi)者可能通過(guò)訴訟從而免受災(zāi)難。
[B] 受傷的顧客可望獲得法律制度的保護(hù)。
[C] 公司通過(guò)提供新的警示語(yǔ)以避免遭起訴。
[D] 陪審團(tuán)更會(huì)從公司承諾的賠償中挑毛病。
53. 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
[答案] A
[解題思路]
本題的例子主要在文章的第四段，該題前兩句就提出"Now the tide appears to be turning. As personal injury claims continue as before, some courts are beginning to side with defendants, especially in cases where a warning label probably wouldn't have changed anything"（現(xiàn)在看來(lái)這種趨勢(shì)正在轉(zhuǎn)變。盡管個(gè)人傷害的指控一如既往還在繼續(xù)，但有些法庭已開(kāi)始站到被告一方，特別是在處理那些即使有警示語(yǔ)也無(wú)法避免傷害的案件時(shí)），后面舉了Schull helmet的例子，用來(lái)論證該段開(kāi)頭的觀點(diǎn)，因此正確選項(xiàng)是A。B選項(xiàng)就事論事，不是說(shuō)明舉例的目的，因而是錯(cuò)誤選項(xiàng)。C選項(xiàng)在文中沒(méi)有直接或者相關(guān)的表述，而D選項(xiàng)則與原文話題無(wú)關(guān)。
[題目譯文]
Schutt頭盔案證明 。
[A] 有些受傷索賠不再得到法律支持
[B] 頭盔不是用來(lái)預(yù)防受傷的
[C] 產(chǎn)品的警示語(yǔ)將最終被放棄
[D] 一些體育項(xiàng)目可能不再受運(yùn)動(dòng)員們歡迎
相關(guān)推薦：考研英語(yǔ)閱讀理解命題思路透析和真題揭秘(31)
2009考研英語(yǔ)考前狂背作文：應(yīng)用文范文匯總
