由此可见,无论是推理题,还是其他带有推理性质的问题,其答案不过是将对应原文换个说法而已,不能进行过度推理。又如,
Its 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.
What were things like in 1980s when accidents happened?
Customers might be relieved of their disasters through lawsuits.
Injured customers could expect protection from the legal system.
Companies would avoid being sued by providing new warnings.
Juries tended to find fault with the compensations companies promised.
这是一道事实细节题。根据问题中的关键词1980s定位一段末句:陪审团一般会让有关公司对顾客的不幸负责。这等于说法律保护受伤害的顾客。B受伤害的顾客可以受到法律保护符合此意,为正确答案。C选项和D选项的内容明显与原文不符。A顾客可以通过诉讼免除自己的灾难属于过度推理,因为一段四句指出:成功的诉讼可以使顾客获得损失赔偿,但是可以获得损失赔偿不等于免除了灾难。例如,一个人因使用某公司产品而受到伤害,他可以通过诉讼获得赔偿,但是伤害本身无法通过诉讼免除。
【考研英语倒数12天:中国式陷阱】相关文章:
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30