1999年全国硕士研究生入学考试英语试题

为及物动词，后不接IN，故应排除。DIFFER IN意为“在……方面不同”，此处选[B]完全符合上下文意思。[C]SHIFT（替换，转换）通常与FROM ……TO ……连用。[D]DISTINGUISH意为“区别”，通常与FROM连用，DISTINGUISH A FROM B意为“将A和B区别开来”。

　　[A]alter

　　[B]differ

　　[C]shift

　　[D]distinguish

　　46、[A]constituting[B]aggravating[C]observing[D]justifying

　　（本题分值：1分）

　　「正确答案」

　　C

　　[注释]本题考查词汇的惯用搭配。RULES和REGULATION的前面通常使用OBSERVE，所以选项[C]OBSERVING正确。[A]CONSTITUTING（组成，构成）、[B]AGGRAVATING（使……恶化）和[D]JUSTIFYING（证明……是公正的，认为……有理）都和空格后的RULES及REGULATION不搭配。

　　[A]constituting

　　[B]aggravating

　　[C]observing

　　[D]justifying

　　47、[A]Some[B]Many[C]Even[D]Still

　　（本题分值：1分）

　　「正确答案」

　　D

　　[注释]本题考查连接词的用法。在空格前，文章说：有些人强调机械方面的校正和检验。有些人则强调遵守规章和法规以实施安全工作，显然下一句应该是“还有其他人”的别的主张，所以根据上下文应选[D]。

　　[A]Some

　　[B]Many

　　[C]Even

　　[D]Still

　　48、[A]comes off[B]turns up[C]pays off[D]holds up

　　（本题分值：1分）

　　「正确答案」

　　C

　　[注释]本题考查动词短语知识。[A]COMES OFF（实现，成功）。[B]TURNS UP（开大，调大，出现，到来）。[C]PAYS OFF（使人得益，有报偿，付清……的工资），选项[C]的意思与上下文相吻合。全句意为“单从财政的观点上来看，安全是能使人得益的。”[D]HOLDS UP意为“举起，阻挡”也与文章的意思不符。

　　[A]comes off

　　[B]turns up

　　[C]pays off

　　[D]holds up

　　49、[A]claims[B]reports[C]declarations[D]proclamations

　　（本题分值：1分）

　　「正确答案」

　　A

　　[注释]本题也是考查一词多义知识。[A]CLAIM意为“索赔，要求，声称”，与上下文的意思相符，故选[A]。全句的意思是：受伤害索赔越少，工人的安全保险率越高。[B]REPORTS（报告）、[C]DECLARATIONS（宣言，声明）、[D]PROCLAMATION（宣布，声明）都与上下文的意思不符，所以排除。

　　[A]claims

　　[B]reports

　　[C]declarations

　　[D]proclamations 转贴于：博学在线_考研

：jhdxy

进入博学在线论坛考研频道交流>>>

[10] [11]

　　50、[A]an advantage[B]a benefit[C]an interest[D]a profit

　　（本题分值：1分）

　　「正确答案」

　　D

　　[注释]本题考查考生对英语中的一些常用习语的熟识程度。本句末尾的AT A LOSS是和AT A PROFIT对应的，故应选[D]。

　　[A]an advantage

　　[B]a benefit

　　[C]an interest

　　[D]a profit

　　Part Ⅲ Reading Comprehension（每题2分，共40分）Directions：

　　Each of the passages below is followed by some questions. For each question there are four answers marked[A],[B],[C]and[D]. Read the passages carefully and choose the best answer to each of the questions. Then mark your answer on ANSWER SHEETⅠby blackening the corresponding letter in the brackets with a pencil.（40 points）

　　单项选择题

　　Passage1

　　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 regualtions, 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 are 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 an