这几天正在做WEAKEN题,我来试试: 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. 文章推理方向: 只要不伤害他人,就可以不带安全带 ---> 有自由选择带或者不带. weaken方向: 如果伤害他人了,那你就没自由选择带或者不带了吧.你就老老实实的带着吧. SO, A说新车有安全带怎样怎样,这和文章推理没关系.排除. B 说汽车保险费会增加,是因为要为那些不带安全带而发生事故的车祸付更多赔偿金. (你想,为什么要保险费增加? 出了事,保险公司要赔偿吧?那事故多了,保险公司赔偿的钱是不是也多了呢?人家又不是傻子,也要挣钱的闹,那老赔钱咋行捏? 那只能抬高保险费啊,这样保险公司才能赢利嘛.那你想想,不等于是所有买保险的人在为不带安全带而出事故的人付赔偿金吗??换了你,让你买了保险却给别人付赔偿金,你愿意伐?那这些不带安全带而出事的人当然是损人,又不利己啊,那不就是weaken了原文中说"他们不harm别人"这个狡辩了吗?) C 说飞机上要带安全带,这是无关类比. 飞机带安全带,跟原文说"只要发生事故不伤害他人就可以不带",有什么关系吗? D: 比较这个洲汽车事故发生率是不是比其他洲高,这也是个无关比较.这里不是说事故发生率的问题. E: 不带安全带的人更容易受伤,但是它没有说这些人会伤害他人啊.如果他们只是让自己受伤而不危机他人,那还是SUPPORT原文的. 所以是B嘛,它是通过保险费的增加说明这些人是损人不利己滴,是该要求去强制带安全带的,是WEAKEN滴/ 小J,你明白了伐?
[此贴子已经被作者于2007-11-22 0:17:18编辑过] |