Unit 6
Part One
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 w
ho 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.
1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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
4. The author's attitude towards the issue seems to be ________.
[A] biased [B] indifferent [C] puzzling [D] objective
Unit 6 （1999） Part 1
重點(diǎn)詞匯：
1. compensate（補(bǔ)償，賠償）看作com+pens+ate，com-前綴“一起”，pens鋼筆，-ate動(dòng)詞后綴，“把鋼筆全都給你”→賠償；名詞形式為compensation?←com+pens+ation名詞后綴。misfortune（不幸；災(zāi)難）←mis+fortune，mis-否定前綴，fortune（運(yùn)氣；財(cái)產(chǎn)）No misfortune can be as great as the loss of time.再大的不幸也比不上時(shí)間的損失。
2. anticipate（預(yù)料，期望）即anti+cip+ate，anti-前綴“先前的”（如antique→anti+que后綴→古老的；古玩），cip詞根“抓”，-ate動(dòng)詞后綴，于是“在事情發(fā)生之前就在腦子里將其抓住”→預(yù)料。
3. stepladder（一種通常在頂端有個(gè)小平臺(tái)的活動(dòng)梯子）←step臺(tái)階+ladder梯子。
4. interaction （互相作用）←inter互相+act作用+ion名詞后綴。It is the interaction of his personality and period that results in the formation of a composer's style.作曲家風(fēng)格的形成，是其個(gè)性與時(shí)代相互作用的結(jié)果。
5. regulation（調(diào)整；校準(zhǔn)；規(guī)章）即regul+ation，regul詞根“規(guī)則”=rule（如regular→定期的；規(guī)則的），-ation名詞后綴；動(dòng)詞形式為regulate（調(diào)整；校準(zhǔn)；管制）←regul+ate。
6. defendant （辯護(hù)的；被告）←defend（防衛(wèi)；辯護(hù)）+ant后綴。
7. guideline （指導(dǎo)方針）←guide+line。
8. tort ?（民事侵權(quán)行為）與torture（v.n.折磨；拷問(wèn)）一起記，“折磨拷問(wèn)別人是一種民事侵權(quán)行為”。
9. bombard（v.炮轟，攻擊）為象聲詞。
10. triviality ?（瑣事）←trivial瑣碎的+ity名詞后綴。In important matters, we expose our best sides; in trivial matter, we disclose ourselves as we really are.我們?cè)谥匾氖录酗@示自己的方面，在無(wú)關(guān)緊要的小事中露出自己的本來(lái)面目。
11. mention（v.n.提及）One measure of friendship consists not in the number of things friends can discuss, but in the number of things they need no longer mention.友誼的尺度之一不在于朋友們可以討論的事情的數(shù)量，而在于他們無(wú)須再提及的事情的數(shù)量。
12. oblige（v.迫使，責(zé)成）。My ideal of a picture is that every Part of it should oblige the looker-on who has any real sense for a whole to see the rest.我理想中的畫(huà)是這樣的：它的每個(gè)部分都會(huì)促使具有任何真正整體感的觀者去看其余的部分。
13. indifferent （冷漠的；不積極的）即in+different，in-否定前綴，different不同，“無(wú)論怎樣都感覺(jué)不到什么不同”→漠不關(guān)心的。T
14. objective （客觀的；目標(biāo)）去e加-ity即為objectivity（客觀性）。
難句解析：
① 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.
在這個(gè)主從復(fù)合句中，前一個(gè)分句是由while引導(dǎo)的讓步從句，這個(gè)從句由兩個(gè)并列句組成，中間用and連接。破折號(hào)之間的部分是舉例說(shuō)明warnings的內(nèi)容，and后面的many省略了warnings，state與federal共用regulations。主句部分本身也是一個(gè)主從復(fù)合句，主句用了一個(gè)形式主語(yǔ)it，真正的主語(yǔ)是that引導(dǎo)的從句，注意這個(gè)從句中有個(gè)動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)protect... from...，后面是一個(gè)if引導(dǎo)的條件從句。
首先要把握這個(gè)句子的主旨，那就是主句中所闡明的warnings對(duì)manufacturers and sellers的保護(hù)作用還很不明朗。注意破折號(hào)之間的部分對(duì)warnings的解釋作用以及it作為形式主語(yǔ)的替代作用。
② 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.
在這個(gè)主從復(fù)合句中，前一個(gè)分句是由as引導(dǎo)的伴隨狀語(yǔ)從句，注意這里的claims是個(gè)名詞；主句的時(shí)態(tài)用的是現(xiàn)在進(jìn)行時(shí)，表示的這種狀況正在開(kāi)始。這個(gè)主句有一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的狀語(yǔ)短語(yǔ)，原因是cases后面跟了一個(gè)where引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句修飾cases，這個(gè)定語(yǔ)從句的主干是warning label not change anything，解釋的是什么樣的cases。
主句依然是抓住句子大意的關(guān)鍵，該句所要表達(dá)的就是some courts beginning to side with defendants，再者要注意cases后面定語(yǔ)從句指出了哪類(lèi)cases尤為如此。
③ 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.
這個(gè)句子的主干是... president... successfully fought a lawsuit...。句子的主語(yǔ)是Julie Nimmons，后面逗號(hào)之間的部分是她的職位，賓語(yǔ)部分a lawsuit有一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的動(dòng)詞現(xiàn)在分詞involving所引導(dǎo)的短語(yǔ)，involving的賓語(yǔ)是a football player，后面跟了一個(gè)who引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句，這個(gè)定語(yǔ)從句中有一個(gè)while引導(dǎo)的時(shí)間狀語(yǔ)，還原成句子就是while he was wearing a Schutt helmet。找出其中的關(guān)鍵部分：... president of Schutt... successfully fought a lawsuit involving a football player... paralyzed... while wearing a Schutt helmet。
④ 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.
這個(gè)看起來(lái)很長(zhǎng)的句子其實(shí)是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單句，主干是... the... Institute... issued new guidelines for tort law...。其中破折號(hào)之間的內(nèi)容說(shuō)明的是這個(gè)Institute的人員構(gòu)成，并且用一個(gè)whose引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句說(shuō)明了這些成員的權(quán)威。law后面跟的現(xiàn)在分詞stating有一個(gè)相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的賓語(yǔ)從句，這個(gè)從句的主語(yǔ)是companies，而謂語(yǔ)有兩個(gè)動(dòng)詞結(jié)構(gòu)，一個(gè)是warn... of...，另一個(gè)是bombard... with...，敘述了guidelines的內(nèi)容。
這個(gè)句子的要點(diǎn)是在stating后面的that從句，對(duì)其中兩個(gè)動(dòng)詞結(jié)構(gòu)warn... of...和bombard... with...的正確理解決定了對(duì)整個(gè)句子的理解。
⑤ 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.
在這個(gè)復(fù)合句中，if引導(dǎo)的是一個(gè)條件從句，主句部分的謂語(yǔ)用了被動(dòng)形式，謂語(yǔ)動(dòng)詞provide for有兩個(gè)賓語(yǔ)，一個(gè)是the benefits of customers，另一個(gè)是protection against legal liability，not決定了兩者的取舍關(guān)系：取前者，舍后者。
從句給出了前提條件，注意has its way的意思是can be achieved；理解主句部分的關(guān)鍵在于provide for的兩個(gè)賓語(yǔ)的取舍關(guān)系。
試題解析：
1. 【正確答案】 [B]
意為：受傷的顧客可望得到法律制度的保護(hù)。第一段指出，外面是個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的世界，如果你走出去，可能會(huì)滑倒在門(mén)墊上，摔傷一條腿；如果點(diǎn)燃爐灶，可能燒毀整棟房屋。可幸的是，如果門(mén)墊或爐灶沒(méi)有警告你可能發(fā)生的危害，你可以就自己所受的傷害訴諸法律，成功地獲得賠償?；蛘?，更確切地說(shuō)，自80年代初以來(lái)人們一直這樣認(rèn)為，從那時(shí)起，陪審團(tuán)開(kāi)始認(rèn)為更多的公司應(yīng)該對(duì)其顧客遭受的不幸負(fù)責(zé)。
第二段提到，為了保護(hù)自己，公司開(kāi)始撰寫(xiě)冗長(zhǎng)的標(biāo)簽，但是，正如第三段第二句所指出的那樣，這種做法無(wú)濟(jì)于事，因?yàn)?，如果顧客與公司對(duì)簿公堂，大約一半的情況是公司敗訴。然而，第四段第一句指出，這種潮流似乎正發(fā)生逆轉(zhuǎn)。
A意為：顧客可以通過(guò)訴訟免除自己的災(zāi)難。relieve sb. of sth.意為“免除某人某事；解除某人某事；使某人擺脫某事”。relieve的意思與原文表達(dá)的內(nèi)容不相符，根據(jù)對(duì)選擇項(xiàng)B的分析，顧客通過(guò)法律獲得的是對(duì)損失的賠償。C意為：公司將會(huì)通過(guò)提供新的警示標(biāo)簽避免被起訴。該選擇項(xiàng)有兩處主要錯(cuò)誤：一是avoid的使用，二是new的使用，這兩個(gè)詞的使用使C與原文表達(dá)的內(nèi)容很不一致。D意為：陪審團(tuán)傾向于對(duì)公司所承諾的賠償嚴(yán)加挑剔。
2. 【正確答案】[C]
意為：充分利用標(biāo)簽避免法律責(zé)任。第二段指出，公司感到很大威脅，它們通過(guò)撰寫(xiě)比以前更長(zhǎng)的警示標(biāo)簽保護(hù)自己，企圖預(yù)料各種可能發(fā)生的事故。結(jié)果，現(xiàn)在的梯子上的標(biāo)簽有幾英寸長(zhǎng)，除了警告你其他可能發(fā)生的意外之外，還警告說(shuō)你可能摔下來(lái)——這種警告真是莫名其妙！孩子的蝙蝠俠玩具的斗篷上也警告說(shuō)：本玩具“并不能使擁有者飛行”。在作者看來(lái)，這樣的警示語(yǔ)都是多余的、不必要的。
A意為：通過(guò)在產(chǎn)品上寫(xiě)長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的警示語(yǔ)滿(mǎn)足顧客。根據(jù)上文對(duì)選擇項(xiàng)C的分析，他們這樣做的目的主要是避免承擔(dān)責(zé)任，而不是滿(mǎn)足顧客的需要。B意為：在描述自己的產(chǎn)品的不足上表現(xiàn)得更誠(chéng)實(shí)。D意為：不得不將顧客的安全看作頭等重要的事。
3. 【正確答案】[A]
意為：某些因傷害提出的索賠再也受不到法律的保護(hù)了。第三段指出，潮流似乎正發(fā)生逆轉(zhuǎn)，雖然因人身傷害引起的索賠案像以往一樣不斷出現(xiàn)，某些法庭正逐漸開(kāi)始站到被告一邊（side with），特別是在有警示標(biāo)簽也可能無(wú)濟(jì)于事的案件中。在Schutt Sports的案件中，Schutt Sports公司被告生產(chǎn)了不安全的頭盔，造成一名橄攬球隊(duì)員（football player）的癱瘓，但是，陪審團(tuán)認(rèn)為，造成球員受傷的不是頭盔，而是橄欖球這種運(yùn)動(dòng)本身的危險(xiǎn)性（the nature of the game）。公司因此勝訴。這一例子用于說(shuō)明第四段第一、二句提到的現(xiàn)象。
B意為：頭盔不是設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)防止損傷的。戴頭盔的目的當(dāng)然是防止傷害，但是，頭盔不可能是萬(wàn)能的。C意為：產(chǎn)品標(biāo)簽最終將會(huì)被淘汰。discard意為：棄而不用。D意為：運(yùn)動(dòng)員可能不再會(huì)熱衷于某些體育運(yùn)動(dòng)項(xiàng)目。
4. 【正確答案】 [D]
意為：客觀的。這里所說(shuō)的“問(wèn)題”指索賠案中孰是孰非這一問(wèn)題。文章探討了索賠案所涉及的顧客（原告）、公司（被告）和陪審團(tuán)三方的反應(yīng)，重點(diǎn)指出陪審團(tuán)態(tài)度的轉(zhuǎn)變。文章敘述客觀，作者沒(méi)有表達(dá)個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)。
A意為：有偏見(jiàn)的。B意為：冷漠的。C意為：迷惑不解的。
全文翻譯：
外面是一個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的世界。如果你走出去，可能會(huì)滑倒在門(mén)墊上，摔傷一條腿。如果你點(diǎn)燃爐灶，可能會(huì)把房子燒掉。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，那么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。大約自80年代初以來(lái)人們就不再（guangxian注：此處“不再”二字應(yīng)刪除?。┻@樣認(rèn)為了，當(dāng)時(shí)陪審團(tuán)已開(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)。
公司因此感到了威脅，便做出了反應(yīng)，寫(xiě)出越來(lái)越長(zhǎng)的警示標(biāo)識(shí)語(yǔ)，力圖預(yù)先標(biāo)明種種可能發(fā)生的事故?，F(xiàn)在，梯子上警告標(biāo)簽有幾英寸長(zhǎng)，除了警告你其他可能發(fā)生的意外情況外，還警告你可能會(huì)摔下來(lái)，簡(jiǎn)直是莫名其妙！印在兒童蝙蝠俠披風(fēng)上的標(biāo)識(shí)語(yǔ)竟然也告誡說(shuō)，本玩具“無(wú)法讓用戶(hù)飛行”。
雖然警示語(yǔ)常常是合理而必要的，如對(duì)藥物副作用而產(chǎn)生的危險(xiǎn)的警示語(yǔ)，并且很多是州或聯(lián)邦法規(guī)所要求的，但是當(dāng)消費(fèi)者受傷，這些警示語(yǔ)能否真正保護(hù)制造商和銷(xiāo)售商使之免于責(zé)任，這還很難說(shuō)。被受傷的消費(fèi)者告上法庭的公司中，大約一半的情況是公司敗訴。
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地繼續(xù)著，但有些法庭已開(kāi)始站到被告一方，特別是在處理那些有警示語(yǔ)也無(wú)法避免傷害的案件時(shí)。五月份，伊利諾斯州的Shutt體育公司總裁朱利?尼蒙斯就成功地打贏了這樣一場(chǎng)官司。一名橄欖球隊(duì)員戴著該公司的頭盔在一場(chǎng)比賽中受傷癱瘓，遂將該公司告上法庭。公司總裁朱利?尼蒙斯說(shuō)：“他成了癱瘓，我們非常難過(guò)，但頭盔的設(shè)計(jì)不是為了預(yù)防這類(lèi)傷害的?！迸銓張F(tuán)也認(rèn)為造成該運(yùn)動(dòng)員受傷的是這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)本身的危險(xiǎn)性，而不是頭盔。與此同時(shí)，美國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)——該學(xué)會(huì)由一群舉足輕重的法官、律師、學(xué)者所組成——簽署了新的民事侵害法綱要，宣布公司不必警示顧客那些顯而易見(jiàn)的危險(xiǎn)，或者給顧客列出一份冗長(zhǎng)的可能造成的危險(xiǎn)的清單。康奈爾大學(xué)法學(xué)院一位參與起草新綱要的教授說(shuō)，“重要的信息會(huì)淹沒(méi)在細(xì)枝末節(jié)的汪洋之中”。如果該法律團(tuán)體的這一適中的目的能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)，產(chǎn)品上提供的警示信息實(shí)際上是用來(lái)保護(hù)消費(fèi)者利益的，而不是為了避免公司承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任的。
Part One
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 w
ho 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.
1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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
4. The author's attitude towards the issue seems to be ________.
[A] biased [B] indifferent [C] puzzling [D] objective
Unit 6 （1999） Part 1
重點(diǎn)詞匯：
1. compensate（補(bǔ)償，賠償）看作com+pens+ate，com-前綴“一起”，pens鋼筆，-ate動(dòng)詞后綴，“把鋼筆全都給你”→賠償；名詞形式為compensation?←com+pens+ation名詞后綴。misfortune（不幸；災(zāi)難）←mis+fortune，mis-否定前綴，fortune（運(yùn)氣；財(cái)產(chǎn)）No misfortune can be as great as the loss of time.再大的不幸也比不上時(shí)間的損失。
2. anticipate（預(yù)料，期望）即anti+cip+ate，anti-前綴“先前的”（如antique→anti+que后綴→古老的；古玩），cip詞根“抓”，-ate動(dòng)詞后綴，于是“在事情發(fā)生之前就在腦子里將其抓住”→預(yù)料。
3. stepladder（一種通常在頂端有個(gè)小平臺(tái)的活動(dòng)梯子）←step臺(tái)階+ladder梯子。
4. interaction （互相作用）←inter互相+act作用+ion名詞后綴。It is the interaction of his personality and period that results in the formation of a composer's style.作曲家風(fēng)格的形成，是其個(gè)性與時(shí)代相互作用的結(jié)果。
5. regulation（調(diào)整；校準(zhǔn)；規(guī)章）即regul+ation，regul詞根“規(guī)則”=rule（如regular→定期的；規(guī)則的），-ation名詞后綴；動(dòng)詞形式為regulate（調(diào)整；校準(zhǔn)；管制）←regul+ate。
6. defendant （辯護(hù)的；被告）←defend（防衛(wèi)；辯護(hù)）+ant后綴。
7. guideline （指導(dǎo)方針）←guide+line。
8. tort ?（民事侵權(quán)行為）與torture（v.n.折磨；拷問(wèn)）一起記，“折磨拷問(wèn)別人是一種民事侵權(quán)行為”。
9. bombard（v.炮轟，攻擊）為象聲詞。
10. triviality ?（瑣事）←trivial瑣碎的+ity名詞后綴。In important matters, we expose our best sides; in trivial matter, we disclose ourselves as we really are.我們?cè)谥匾氖录酗@示自己的方面，在無(wú)關(guān)緊要的小事中露出自己的本來(lái)面目。
11. mention（v.n.提及）One measure of friendship consists not in the number of things friends can discuss, but in the number of things they need no longer mention.友誼的尺度之一不在于朋友們可以討論的事情的數(shù)量，而在于他們無(wú)須再提及的事情的數(shù)量。
12. oblige（v.迫使，責(zé)成）。My ideal of a picture is that every Part of it should oblige the looker-on who has any real sense for a whole to see the rest.我理想中的畫(huà)是這樣的：它的每個(gè)部分都會(huì)促使具有任何真正整體感的觀者去看其余的部分。
13. indifferent （冷漠的；不積極的）即in+different，in-否定前綴，different不同，“無(wú)論怎樣都感覺(jué)不到什么不同”→漠不關(guān)心的。T
14. objective （客觀的；目標(biāo)）去e加-ity即為objectivity（客觀性）。
難句解析：
① 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.
在這個(gè)主從復(fù)合句中，前一個(gè)分句是由while引導(dǎo)的讓步從句，這個(gè)從句由兩個(gè)并列句組成，中間用and連接。破折號(hào)之間的部分是舉例說(shuō)明warnings的內(nèi)容，and后面的many省略了warnings，state與federal共用regulations。主句部分本身也是一個(gè)主從復(fù)合句，主句用了一個(gè)形式主語(yǔ)it，真正的主語(yǔ)是that引導(dǎo)的從句，注意這個(gè)從句中有個(gè)動(dòng)詞短語(yǔ)protect... from...，后面是一個(gè)if引導(dǎo)的條件從句。
首先要把握這個(gè)句子的主旨，那就是主句中所闡明的warnings對(duì)manufacturers and sellers的保護(hù)作用還很不明朗。注意破折號(hào)之間的部分對(duì)warnings的解釋作用以及it作為形式主語(yǔ)的替代作用。
② 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.
在這個(gè)主從復(fù)合句中，前一個(gè)分句是由as引導(dǎo)的伴隨狀語(yǔ)從句，注意這里的claims是個(gè)名詞；主句的時(shí)態(tài)用的是現(xiàn)在進(jìn)行時(shí)，表示的這種狀況正在開(kāi)始。這個(gè)主句有一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的狀語(yǔ)短語(yǔ)，原因是cases后面跟了一個(gè)where引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句修飾cases，這個(gè)定語(yǔ)從句的主干是warning label not change anything，解釋的是什么樣的cases。
主句依然是抓住句子大意的關(guān)鍵，該句所要表達(dá)的就是some courts beginning to side with defendants，再者要注意cases后面定語(yǔ)從句指出了哪類(lèi)cases尤為如此。
③ 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.
這個(gè)句子的主干是... president... successfully fought a lawsuit...。句子的主語(yǔ)是Julie Nimmons，后面逗號(hào)之間的部分是她的職位，賓語(yǔ)部分a lawsuit有一個(gè)較長(zhǎng)的動(dòng)詞現(xiàn)在分詞involving所引導(dǎo)的短語(yǔ)，involving的賓語(yǔ)是a football player，后面跟了一個(gè)who引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句，這個(gè)定語(yǔ)從句中有一個(gè)while引導(dǎo)的時(shí)間狀語(yǔ)，還原成句子就是while he was wearing a Schutt helmet。找出其中的關(guān)鍵部分：... president of Schutt... successfully fought a lawsuit involving a football player... paralyzed... while wearing a Schutt helmet。
④ 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.
這個(gè)看起來(lái)很長(zhǎng)的句子其實(shí)是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單句，主干是... the... Institute... issued new guidelines for tort law...。其中破折號(hào)之間的內(nèi)容說(shuō)明的是這個(gè)Institute的人員構(gòu)成，并且用一個(gè)whose引導(dǎo)的定語(yǔ)從句說(shuō)明了這些成員的權(quán)威。law后面跟的現(xiàn)在分詞stating有一個(gè)相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的賓語(yǔ)從句，這個(gè)從句的主語(yǔ)是companies，而謂語(yǔ)有兩個(gè)動(dòng)詞結(jié)構(gòu)，一個(gè)是warn... of...，另一個(gè)是bombard... with...，敘述了guidelines的內(nèi)容。
這個(gè)句子的要點(diǎn)是在stating后面的that從句，對(duì)其中兩個(gè)動(dòng)詞結(jié)構(gòu)warn... of...和bombard... with...的正確理解決定了對(duì)整個(gè)句子的理解。
⑤ 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.
在這個(gè)復(fù)合句中，if引導(dǎo)的是一個(gè)條件從句，主句部分的謂語(yǔ)用了被動(dòng)形式，謂語(yǔ)動(dòng)詞provide for有兩個(gè)賓語(yǔ)，一個(gè)是the benefits of customers，另一個(gè)是protection against legal liability，not決定了兩者的取舍關(guān)系：取前者，舍后者。
從句給出了前提條件，注意has its way的意思是can be achieved；理解主句部分的關(guān)鍵在于provide for的兩個(gè)賓語(yǔ)的取舍關(guān)系。
試題解析：
1. 【正確答案】 [B]
意為：受傷的顧客可望得到法律制度的保護(hù)。第一段指出，外面是個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的世界，如果你走出去，可能會(huì)滑倒在門(mén)墊上，摔傷一條腿；如果點(diǎn)燃爐灶，可能燒毀整棟房屋。可幸的是，如果門(mén)墊或爐灶沒(méi)有警告你可能發(fā)生的危害，你可以就自己所受的傷害訴諸法律，成功地獲得賠償?；蛘?，更確切地說(shuō)，自80年代初以來(lái)人們一直這樣認(rèn)為，從那時(shí)起，陪審團(tuán)開(kāi)始認(rèn)為更多的公司應(yīng)該對(duì)其顧客遭受的不幸負(fù)責(zé)。
第二段提到，為了保護(hù)自己，公司開(kāi)始撰寫(xiě)冗長(zhǎng)的標(biāo)簽，但是，正如第三段第二句所指出的那樣，這種做法無(wú)濟(jì)于事，因?yàn)?，如果顧客與公司對(duì)簿公堂，大約一半的情況是公司敗訴。然而，第四段第一句指出，這種潮流似乎正發(fā)生逆轉(zhuǎn)。
A意為：顧客可以通過(guò)訴訟免除自己的災(zāi)難。relieve sb. of sth.意為“免除某人某事；解除某人某事；使某人擺脫某事”。relieve的意思與原文表達(dá)的內(nèi)容不相符，根據(jù)對(duì)選擇項(xiàng)B的分析，顧客通過(guò)法律獲得的是對(duì)損失的賠償。C意為：公司將會(huì)通過(guò)提供新的警示標(biāo)簽避免被起訴。該選擇項(xiàng)有兩處主要錯(cuò)誤：一是avoid的使用，二是new的使用，這兩個(gè)詞的使用使C與原文表達(dá)的內(nèi)容很不一致。D意為：陪審團(tuán)傾向于對(duì)公司所承諾的賠償嚴(yán)加挑剔。
2. 【正確答案】[C]
意為：充分利用標(biāo)簽避免法律責(zé)任。第二段指出，公司感到很大威脅，它們通過(guò)撰寫(xiě)比以前更長(zhǎng)的警示標(biāo)簽保護(hù)自己，企圖預(yù)料各種可能發(fā)生的事故。結(jié)果，現(xiàn)在的梯子上的標(biāo)簽有幾英寸長(zhǎng)，除了警告你其他可能發(fā)生的意外之外，還警告說(shuō)你可能摔下來(lái)——這種警告真是莫名其妙！孩子的蝙蝠俠玩具的斗篷上也警告說(shuō)：本玩具“并不能使擁有者飛行”。在作者看來(lái)，這樣的警示語(yǔ)都是多余的、不必要的。
A意為：通過(guò)在產(chǎn)品上寫(xiě)長(zhǎng)長(zhǎng)的警示語(yǔ)滿(mǎn)足顧客。根據(jù)上文對(duì)選擇項(xiàng)C的分析，他們這樣做的目的主要是避免承擔(dān)責(zé)任，而不是滿(mǎn)足顧客的需要。B意為：在描述自己的產(chǎn)品的不足上表現(xiàn)得更誠(chéng)實(shí)。D意為：不得不將顧客的安全看作頭等重要的事。
3. 【正確答案】[A]
意為：某些因傷害提出的索賠再也受不到法律的保護(hù)了。第三段指出，潮流似乎正發(fā)生逆轉(zhuǎn)，雖然因人身傷害引起的索賠案像以往一樣不斷出現(xiàn)，某些法庭正逐漸開(kāi)始站到被告一邊（side with），特別是在有警示標(biāo)簽也可能無(wú)濟(jì)于事的案件中。在Schutt Sports的案件中，Schutt Sports公司被告生產(chǎn)了不安全的頭盔，造成一名橄攬球隊(duì)員（football player）的癱瘓，但是，陪審團(tuán)認(rèn)為，造成球員受傷的不是頭盔，而是橄欖球這種運(yùn)動(dòng)本身的危險(xiǎn)性（the nature of the game）。公司因此勝訴。這一例子用于說(shuō)明第四段第一、二句提到的現(xiàn)象。
B意為：頭盔不是設(shè)計(jì)來(lái)防止損傷的。戴頭盔的目的當(dāng)然是防止傷害，但是，頭盔不可能是萬(wàn)能的。C意為：產(chǎn)品標(biāo)簽最終將會(huì)被淘汰。discard意為：棄而不用。D意為：運(yùn)動(dòng)員可能不再會(huì)熱衷于某些體育運(yùn)動(dòng)項(xiàng)目。
4. 【正確答案】 [D]
意為：客觀的。這里所說(shuō)的“問(wèn)題”指索賠案中孰是孰非這一問(wèn)題。文章探討了索賠案所涉及的顧客（原告）、公司（被告）和陪審團(tuán)三方的反應(yīng)，重點(diǎn)指出陪審團(tuán)態(tài)度的轉(zhuǎn)變。文章敘述客觀，作者沒(méi)有表達(dá)個(gè)人觀點(diǎn)。
A意為：有偏見(jiàn)的。B意為：冷漠的。C意為：迷惑不解的。
全文翻譯：
外面是一個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的世界。如果你走出去，可能會(huì)滑倒在門(mén)墊上，摔傷一條腿。如果你點(diǎn)燃爐灶，可能會(huì)把房子燒掉。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，那么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。大約自80年代初以來(lái)人們就不再（guangxian注：此處“不再”二字應(yīng)刪除?。┻@樣認(rèn)為了，當(dāng)時(shí)陪審團(tuán)已開(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)。
公司因此感到了威脅，便做出了反應(yīng)，寫(xiě)出越來(lái)越長(zhǎng)的警示標(biāo)識(shí)語(yǔ)，力圖預(yù)先標(biāo)明種種可能發(fā)生的事故?，F(xiàn)在，梯子上警告標(biāo)簽有幾英寸長(zhǎng)，除了警告你其他可能發(fā)生的意外情況外，還警告你可能會(huì)摔下來(lái)，簡(jiǎn)直是莫名其妙！印在兒童蝙蝠俠披風(fēng)上的標(biāo)識(shí)語(yǔ)竟然也告誡說(shuō)，本玩具“無(wú)法讓用戶(hù)飛行”。
雖然警示語(yǔ)常常是合理而必要的，如對(duì)藥物副作用而產(chǎn)生的危險(xiǎn)的警示語(yǔ)，并且很多是州或聯(lián)邦法規(guī)所要求的，但是當(dāng)消費(fèi)者受傷，這些警示語(yǔ)能否真正保護(hù)制造商和銷(xiāo)售商使之免于責(zé)任，這還很難說(shuō)。被受傷的消費(fèi)者告上法庭的公司中，大約一半的情況是公司敗訴。
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地繼續(xù)著，但有些法庭已開(kāi)始站到被告一方，特別是在處理那些有警示語(yǔ)也無(wú)法避免傷害的案件時(shí)。五月份，伊利諾斯州的Shutt體育公司總裁朱利?尼蒙斯就成功地打贏了這樣一場(chǎng)官司。一名橄欖球隊(duì)員戴著該公司的頭盔在一場(chǎng)比賽中受傷癱瘓，遂將該公司告上法庭。公司總裁朱利?尼蒙斯說(shuō)：“他成了癱瘓，我們非常難過(guò)，但頭盔的設(shè)計(jì)不是為了預(yù)防這類(lèi)傷害的?！迸銓張F(tuán)也認(rèn)為造成該運(yùn)動(dòng)員受傷的是這項(xiàng)運(yùn)動(dòng)本身的危險(xiǎn)性，而不是頭盔。與此同時(shí)，美國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)——該學(xué)會(huì)由一群舉足輕重的法官、律師、學(xué)者所組成——簽署了新的民事侵害法綱要，宣布公司不必警示顧客那些顯而易見(jiàn)的危險(xiǎn)，或者給顧客列出一份冗長(zhǎng)的可能造成的危險(xiǎn)的清單。康奈爾大學(xué)法學(xué)院一位參與起草新綱要的教授說(shuō)，“重要的信息會(huì)淹沒(méi)在細(xì)枝末節(jié)的汪洋之中”。如果該法律團(tuán)體的這一適中的目的能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)，產(chǎn)品上提供的警示信息實(shí)際上是用來(lái)保護(hù)消費(fèi)者利益的，而不是為了避免公司承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任的。