2018届英语二轮复习阅读理解词义猜测题专练(三)指代猜测类

阅读理解词义猜测题专练(三) 指代猜测类

A

(2017·黄冈检测)

On Christmas Day, 2003, a woman named Nancy Sue Brown took her daughter and grandchildren to see a movie at an AMC theater. When the movie was over, the crowd made for the exits. A theater employee had just finished mopping the hallway and dutifully placed the “wet floor” sign in the slippery area. No one slipped due to the wet conditions, but someone did manage to knock over the sign. And by the time Ms. Brown got to the area, the sign was lying on the floor. And shortly thereafter, so was she. Her foot got caught in the sign, in a bad way, and she fell. Unfortunately Ms. Brown had undergone a back operation, and the fall caused more damage than it otherwise would have. So she and her husband sued (提起诉讼)．

AMC argued that the entire point of the “wet floor” sign above was to warn of danger, and therefore, courts should encourage the use by not allowing Brown's case to proceed (继续进行). AMC referred to a case about a December, 1998 incident, where a “wet floor” sign, not in us e, fell to the floor causing another trip­and­fall. In that case, Georgia's Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the store, but didn't go so far as to say that “wet floor” signs couldn't give rise to legal liability (责任) in trip­and­fall accidents. In the B rown case, the Supreme Court therefore rejected AMC's argument that the former case applied.

But the Browns argued something surprising that the “wet floor” sign was, itself, dangerous, because “using this type of sign in areas passed by lots of customers creates an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to the public in the form of tripping hazards (危险)．” That's right — the safety sign, used in the way it was designed, was itself dangerous. The court thankfully didn't accept that argument, at least not entirely. But it did conclude that Brown's case could continue to a jury (陪审团) —“a merchant's selection and use of equipment designed to warn customers of one danger that has the potential to expose them to a different one”．体裁：议论文题材：社会现象主题：“小心地滑”指示牌引发的安全事件

【语篇导读】本文主要介绍了布朗夫人在美国一家AMC影院看完电影离开时，被“小心地滑”的指示牌绊倒受伤后，向法院提起诉讼的原因以及法院的审判结果。

1．According to the text, Ms. Brown ________.

A．slipped on the wet floor

B．tripped over a warning sign

C．knocked over warning sign

D．was knocked down by the crowd

解析：B 细节理解题。根据文章第一段中的．.. Ms. Brown got to the area, the sign was lying on the floor. And shortly thereafter, so was she. Her foot got caught in the sign, in a bad way, and she fell.可知，布朗夫人被“小心地滑”的指示牌绊倒了。B项中的tripped over意为“被绊倒”，与文章表述相符，故选B项。C项中的knocked over 意为“打翻；撞倒”，不符合文意。

2．AMC mentioned the 1998 case in order to ________.

A．accept its legal liability for Ms. Brown's loss

B．prove Ms. Brown had some physical problems

C．stress that it had no legal liability for the accident

D．prove other customers were responsible for the accident

解析：C 推理判断题。根据文章第二段第一句AMC argued that... encourage the use by not allowing Brown's case to proceed.可知，AMC影院认为布朗夫人的控诉不成立，法院应该鼓励使用这样的警示牌，接着第二句AMC影院举出1998年的案例来支持自己的观点。由此可推测，AMC影院提到这一案例是为了强调自己不应该承担本次事故的责任。故选C项。

3．What can we learn about the Brown's case from the last paragraph?

A．It would be judged by jury.

B．It would not be allowed to proceed.

C．The court would rule in favor of AMC.

D．The court accepted all the arguments of the Browns.

解析：A 细节理解题。根据文章最后一段中的But it did conclude that Brown's case could continue to a jury...可知，法院申请陪审团来审理此案。故选A项。

4．The underlined word “one” in the last paragraph refers to “________”．A．danger

B．customer

C．business owner

D．equipment in public places

解析：A 词义猜测题。根据文章最后一段最后一句可知，一个商人选择和使用某一种设备来警示顾客某种危险，而这种设备本身就可能将顾客置于另一种危险中。由此可猜测，one指代上文中的danger。故选A项。

长难句分析：But it did conclude that Brown's case could continue to a jury —“a