希望ＬＺ以后问问题的时候把题目帖出来．
14.
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
14.
The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the individual’s right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others. Therefore, B is the best answer.
A suggests that the law may be irrelevant in some cases, but it does not address the issue of the law’s legitimacy. C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue. The argument implicitly concedes that individuals take risks by not wearing seat belts; therefore, D and E, which simply confirm this concession, do not weaken the conclusion.
The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the individual’s right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others
红的是主句，绿的是ＰＲＩＮＣＩＰＬＥ的同位语从句，蓝的是条件句（是那个绿的部分的），灰的也是条件句．意思是说一种理论无法证明个人的一种权力，什么权力呢？就是个人可以决定是否带安全带．什么理论呢？如果对别人没有伤害的话，人们就可以自己承担自己的风险（就是说如果我不害别人我自己愿意怎么样都行，你管不着）．那么在什么情况下这个理论无法证明维护这个权利呢？在这个情况之下，if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others．ＩＴ 是指后面的ＴＨＡＴ从句，就是实际上是对别人有危害的情况之下．
总的意思就是，文中说的ＰＲＩＮＣＩＰＬＥ的确有道理，但是在决定带不带安全带的这个问题上行不通，因为有时候它确实危害到了别人．
WELL NOTED!!
THX..
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |