2019-2020年高考英语二轮复习阅读理解词义猜测题专练三指代猜测类.docVIP

2019-2020年高考英语二轮复习阅读理解词义猜测题专练三指代猜测类.doc

  1. 1、本文档共13页,可阅读全部内容。
  2. 2、原创力文档(book118)网站文档一经付费(服务费),不意味着购买了该文档的版权,仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用,不得用于商业用途,未经授权,严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等,侵权必究。
  3. 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传,本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺!文档内容仅供研究参考,付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费,意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险,本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务;查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点击 这里二次下载
  4. 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等,请点击“版权申诉”(推荐),也可以打举报电话:400-050-0827(电话支持时间:9:00-18:30)。
  5. 5、该文档为VIP文档,如果想要下载,成为VIP会员后,下载免费。
  6. 6、成为VIP后,下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后,不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们
  7. 7、成为VIP后,您将拥有八大权益,权益包括:VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
  8. 8、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传,每下载1次, 网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等,对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档
查看更多
2019-2020年高考英语二轮复习阅读理解词义猜测题专练三指代猜测类 (xx·黄冈检测) On Christmas Day, xx, 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 Browns case to proceed (继续进行). AMC referred to a case about a December, xx incident, where a “wet floor” sign, not in use, fell to the floor causing another trip-and-fall. In that case, Georgias Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the store, but didnt go so far as to say that “wet floor” signs couldnt give rise to legal liability (责任) in trip-and-fall accidents. In the Brown case, the Supreme Court therefore rejected AMCs 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).” Thats right — the safety sign, used in the way it was designed, was itself dangerous. The court thankfully didnt accept that argument, at least not entirely. But it did conclude that Browns case could continue to a jury (陪审团) —“a merchants selection and use of equipment designed to warn customers of one danger that has the potential to expose them to a diff

文档评论(0)

anma + 关注
实名认证
文档贡献者

该用户很懒,什么也没介绍

1亿VIP精品文档

相关文档