考研英語閱讀理解命題思路透析和真題揭秘(18)

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.

54. The author's attitude towards the issue seems to be__
[A] biased        
[B] indifferent          
[C] puzzling           
[D] objective

[答案] D

[解題思路]

縱觀全文，作者在討論這一系列事件及發(fā)展的過程中幾乎沒有用到一些感情色彩強(qiáng)烈的語氣詞、形容詞和副詞，只是忠實(shí)地討論問題的各個(gè)方面，顯而易見他的態(tài)度是非�？陀^的，沒有加入個(gè)人見解。

[題目譯文]

作者對這個(gè)問題的態(tài)度看起來是              。
[A] 帶偏見的
[B] 漠不關(guān)心的
[C] 令人困惑的
[D] 客觀的

【推薦】考生必看：背誦100句涵蓋所有考研英語單詞

　　　　考研英語歷年真題來源報(bào)刊閱讀理解100篇匯總

　　　　一針見血點(diǎn)破09考研英語復(fù)習(xí)中的慣性思維