九、例證原則
事實說話往往是的論證方式之一，命題專家在設(shè)置題目時往往也會針對文中的事例設(shè)問，考查考生對局部結(jié)構(gòu)的理解。例證題1994年第一次出現(xiàn)在考研試卷上，共兩道題，占4分。但在1995年至1998年間，沒有出現(xiàn)過一道例證題，1999年再次出現(xiàn)，一樣是兩道題，占4分。之后，幾乎每年的考題都有一至兩道例證題，這就說明考研命題的一大特點，命題規(guī)則總是不斷重復(fù)的?？忌鷤冊趹?yīng)用例證原則解題時還應(yīng)注意常用的例證方式有兩種：一是先提出觀點，后舉例說明；二是先列舉事例再做出結(jié)論。考生應(yīng)當(dāng)學(xué)會舉一反三，不要被各種原則的變化形式所迷惑。
例
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 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 and not as protection against legal liability.
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［1999年53 題］
A［正確答案］
事實說話往往是的論證方式之一，命題專家在設(shè)置題目時往往也會針對文中的事例設(shè)問，考查考生對局部結(jié)構(gòu)的理解。例證題1994年第一次出現(xiàn)在考研試卷上，共兩道題，占4分。但在1995年至1998年間，沒有出現(xiàn)過一道例證題，1999年再次出現(xiàn)，一樣是兩道題，占4分。之后，幾乎每年的考題都有一至兩道例證題，這就說明考研命題的一大特點，命題規(guī)則總是不斷重復(fù)的?？忌鷤冊趹?yīng)用例證原則解題時還應(yīng)注意常用的例證方式有兩種：一是先提出觀點，后舉例說明；二是先列舉事例再做出結(jié)論。考生應(yīng)當(dāng)學(xué)會舉一反三，不要被各種原則的變化形式所迷惑。
例
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 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 and not as protection against legal liability.
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［1999年53 題］
A［正確答案］