点击免费订阅：[QQ考试通] 大考小考一网打尽！

第十九天：中国式陷阱---阅读之过度推理

仿照莎士比亚的话来叙述考研阅读的第二个陷阱，可以说“推理还是不推理，这是考研阅读的重要问题。”在四个选项中，直接表达的选项与经过推理的选项哪个应该成为答案？推理少的选项与推理多的选项哪个应该成为答案？这些方向性的问题对于选择答案影响很大。例如，

People in earlier eras were surrounded by reminders of misery. They worked until exhausted, lived with few protections and died young. In the West, before mass communication and literacy, the most powerful mass medium was the church, which reminded worshippers that their souls were in danger and that they would someday be meat for worms. Given all this, they did not exactly need their art to be a bummer too.

Which of the following is true of the text?

[A] Religion once functioned as a reminder of misery.

[B] Art provides a balance between expectation and reality.

[C] People feel disappointed at the realities of modern society.

[D] Mass media are inclined to cover disasters and deaths.

本题是一道判断题，可以将选项与原文一一进行比较，然后确定答案。A“宗教一度提醒人们苦难的存在”符合原文意思，从上面的段落中，尤其是最高级the most powerful…就能判断出这一点，因此A为正确答案。B“艺术提供了期望和现实之间的平衡”为干扰选项。为何选A而不选B呢？原因是A为原文直接表达的选项：过去的人们被苦难的提示所包围，而教堂就是其中之一。B在原文没有直接表达，只有经过推理才能得到类似的内容。如何找到原文的直接表达呢？原文的特殊语言现象，如本文的最高级就可以起提示作用。

由此可见，无论是推理题，还是其他带有推理性质的问题，其答案不过是将对应原文换个说法而已，不能进行过度推理。又如，

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.

What were things like in 1980s when accidents happened?

[A]Customers might be relieved of their disasters through lawsuits.

[B]Injured customers could expect protection from the legal system.

[C]Companies would avoid being sued by providing new warnings.

[D]Juries tended to find fault with the compensations companies promised.

这是一道事实细节题。根据问题中的关键词1980s定位一段末句：…（顾客因使用某一产品受到伤害后）陪审团一般会让有关公司对顾客的不幸负责。这等于说法律保护受伤害的顾客。B“受伤害的顾客可以受到法律保护”符合此意，为正确答案。C选项和D选项的内容明显与原文不符。A“顾客可以通过诉讼免除自己的灾难”属于过度推理，因为一段四句指出：成功的诉讼可以使顾客获得损失赔偿（a successful lawsuit might compensate you for your troubles），但是可以获得损失赔偿不等于免除了灾难。例如，一个人因使用某公司产品而受到伤害，他可以通过诉讼获得赔偿，但是伤害本身无法通过诉讼免除。