问题 单项选择题

Police statistics have shown that automobile antitheft devices reduce the risk of car theft, but a statistical study of automobile theft by the automobile insurance industry claims that cars equipped with antitheft devices are, paradoxically, more likely to be stolen than cars that are not so equipped:
Which one of the following, if true, does the most to resolve the apparent paradox ?()

A.Owners of stolen cars almost invariably report the theft immediately to the police but tend to delay notifying their insurance company, in the hope that the vehicle will be recovered.

B.Most cars that are stolen are not equipped with antitheft devices, and most cars that are equipped with antitheft devices are not stolen.

C.The most common automobile antitheft devices are audible alarms, which typically produce ten false alarms for every actual attempted theft.

D.Automobile owners who have particularly theft-prone cars and live in areas of greatest incidence of car theft are those who are most likely to have antitheft devices installed.

E.Most automobile thefts are the work of professional thieves against whose efforts antitheft devices offer scant protection.

答案

参考答案:D

解析:

警察局和汽车保险业在防盗装置能否降低汽车被盗的危险性上发生了分歧,要解决它们的分歧就要分析它们的结论成立所依赖的事实。通过简单的分析,我们很容易发现一个人所拥有的汽车越容易被盗,他就越有可能给他的汽车装防盗装置,他把他的汽车投保的可能性也越大。在汽车被盗案发生率较高的地方,人们也倾向于给他们的汽车装防盗装置,这部分人把他们的汽车投保的可能性也大。这也就是说保险公司的统计研究结果具有一定的片面性,5个选项中只有答案(D)指出了这种片面性,因此(D)为正确选项。

单项选择题 共用题干题
问答题

被告人:刘某某,男,26岁,某车辆厂工人。  犯罪嫌疑人:于某,男,21岁,某车辆厂司机。  刘某某,偷盗成性,2001年元月某日晚在北大学生宿舍伺机行窃,被保安人员发现后,带到派出所询问,刘某某拒不说明其姓名、住址、职业、籍贯等情况,派出所即对其先行拘留。夜间,刘某某乘看守人员不备,逃离派出所。  第二天晚上,刘某某约好友于某出去玩,在路上截住一辆“面的”,声称要去上地村,当车行至行人稀少处时,刘某某操起一把小锤,猛砸司机的手腕,并将司机推倒在车下,让于某开车,企图逃走。司机呼救,于某发现后面有人追来,弃车逃走,刘某某、于某均被群众抓获。经医院检查,“面的”司机的腿被打断。  公安机关以刘某某、于某共同抢劫罪,移送起诉,检察机关在收到移送审查起诉的案件材料之日起第三天告知犯罪嫌疑人有权委托辩护人,辩护律师查阅了诉讼文书、医生鉴定材料,并直接找到“面的”司机搜集有关犯罪嫌疑人的情况。  人民检察院审查移送起诉意见后,对刘某某以抢劫罪提出公诉,对于某作出不起诉决定,一审法院经过审理判决刘某某有期徒刑3年。“面的”司机认为量刑较轻,在判决生效前向人民法院递交了请求抗诉状。

被害人向人民法院递交请求抗诉状的作法是否正确