Question

The 4-year-old boy was mentally disabled, unable to speak in complete sentences and unable to play with other children because of his violent fits(发作) of hitting and biting.

The decision facing one Brooklyn jury（陪审团）was how much a landlord should pay in damages to the boy — named “G.M.M.” in court documents — after an investigation showed he had been living in an apartment illegally coated with lead paint.

Attorneys（律师） representing G.M.M. said $3.4 million was the right number, arguing that the boy would have had a bright career ahead of him; both of his parents had graduated from college and his mother received a master’s degree. But the landlord’s defense put the figure at less than half that — $1.5 million. Attorney Roger Archibald noted that because the boy was Hispanic, G.M.M. was unlikely to attain the advanced education that would provide to such a large income.

The 4-year-old’s case is a rare public look at one corner of the American legal system that explicitly uses race and gender to determine how much victims or their families should receive in compensation（赔偿） when they are seriously injured or killed.

As a result, white and male victims often receive larger awards than people of color and women in similar cases. These differences largely derive from projections of how much more money individuals would have earned over their lifetimes had they not been injured — projections that take into account average earnings and employment levels by race and gender.

1.What is the passage mainly about?

A. Description of the boy’s damage.

B. Situation of the boy’s family.

C. Compensation for the boy’s damage.

D. Advantages of American legal system.

2.What can we conclude from the passage?

A. The boy’s illness resulted from the lead paint of the apartment.

B. The compensation mainly depends on the costs for treatment.

C. The boy would earn a lot of money without the injury.

D. The jury is in favor of the G.M.M attorneys in the boy’s case.

3.What factors seem to affect the jury’s decision?

A. Gender and education.

B. Race and gender.

C. Race and education.

D. Social status and education.

4.What does the author feel about the boy’s case?

A. Angry.B. Satisfied.C. Unjust.D. Optimistic.

Answer

1.C

2.A

3.B

4.C

【解析】

试题分析：本文讲述的是关于一个拉丁裔小男孩受到公寓铅漆的毒害而导致智障的赔偿所引起的争议。

1. 主旨大意题。根据倒数第二段The 4-year-old’s case is a rare public look at one corner of the American legal system that explicitly uses race and gender to determine how much victims or their families should receive in compensation(赔偿) when they are seriously injured or killed.可知，本文讲述的是关于一个拉丁裔小男孩受到公寓铅漆的毒害而导致智障的赔偿所引起的争议。故选C。

2. 细节理解题。根据第二段后半句after an investigation showed he had been living in an apartment illegally coated with lead paint.可知，这男孩的病是由于公寓的铅漆造成的。故选A。

3. 推理判断题。根据第四段The 4-year-old’s case is a rare public look at one corner of the American legal system that explicitly uses race and gender to determine how much victims or their families should receive in compensation(赔偿) when they are seriously injured or killed.可知，Race and gender影响陪审团的决定。故选B。

4. 推理判断题。根据第四段The 4-year-old’s case is a rare public look at one corner of the American legal system that explicitly uses race and gender to determine how much victims or their families should receive in compensation（赔偿） when they are seriously injured or killed. 和第五段第一句As a result, white and male victims often receive larger awards than people of color and women in similar cases.可知，作者认为通过种族和性别来决定赔偿是不公平的，故选C。

【名师点睛】

抓住文章主线和关键词语，归纳文章中心。要注意不是所有的段落都有主题句，有时主题句暗含在句中。阅读这样的文章，就需要自己根据文章的细节来分析，概括出段落的主题，从而推导出文章的主旨。分析的方法是：先弄清该段落主要讲了哪几方面的内容，这些内容在逻辑上有什么联系，然后加以归纳形成主题。21.5.意题。根据倒数第二段The 4-year-old’s case is a rare public look at one corner of the American legal system that explicitly uses race and gender to determine how much victims or their families should receive in compensation（赔偿） when they are seriously injured or killed. 可知，本文讲述的是关于一个拉丁裔小男孩受到公寓铅漆的毒害而导致智障的赔偿所引起的争议。故选C。

考点：考查社会现象类阅读