问题 单项选择题

When it comes to suing doctors, Philadelphia is hardly the city of brotherly love. A combination of sprightly lawyers and sympathetic juries has made Philadelphia a hotspot for medical-malpractice lawsuits. Since 1995, Pennsylvania state courts have awarded an average of $ 2m in such cases, according to Jury Verdict Research, a survey firm. Some medical specialists have seen their malpractice insurance premiums nearly double over the past year. Obstetricians are now paying up to $104,000 a year to protect themselves.

The insurance industry is largely to blame. Carol Golin, the Monitor’s editor, argues that in the 1990s insurers tried to grab market share by offering artificially low rates (betting that any losses would be covered by gains on their investments). The stock-market correction, coupled with the large legal awards, has eroded the insurers’ reserves. Three in Pennsylvania alone have gone bust.

A few doctors--particularly older ones--will quit. The rest are adapting. Some are abandoning litigation-prone procedures, such as delivering babies. Others are moving parts of their practice to neighboring states where insurance rates are lower. Some from Pennsylvania have opened offices in New Jersey. New doctors may also be deterred from setting up shop in litigation havens, however prestigious.

Despite a Republican president, tort reform has got nowhere at the federal level. Indeed doctors could get clobbered indirectly by a Patients’ Bill of Rights, which would further expose managed care companies to lawsuits. This prospect has fuelled interest among doctors in Pennsylvania’s new medical malpractice reform bill, which was signed into law on March 20th. It will, among other things, give doctors $ 40m of state funds to offset their insurance premiums, spread the payment of awards out over time and prohibit individuals from double dipping--that is, suing a doctor for damages that have already been paid by their health insurer.

But will it really help Randall Bovbjerg, a health policy expert at the Urban Institute, argues that the only proper way to slow down the litigation machine would be to limit the compensation for pain and suffering, so-called "non-monetary damages". Needless to say, a fixed cap on such awards is resisted by most trial lawyers. But Mr Bovbjerg reckons a more nuanced approach, with a sliding scale of payments based on well-defined measures of injury, is a better way forward. In the meantime, doctors and insurers are bracing themselves for a couple more rough years before the insurance cycle turns.

Nobody disputes that hospital staff make mistakes: a 1999 Institute of Medicine report claimed that errors kill at least 44,000 patients a year. But there is little evidence that malpractice lawsuits on their own will solve the problem.

To which of the following is the author most likely to agree()

A. The proper way is to slow down payments for injuries

B. Juries tended to find fault with the compensations paid

C. Low insurance rates are to blame for the potential trouble

D. Legal procedures alone may not solve the rough problem

答案

参考答案:D

阅读理解与欣赏

阅读《核舟记》选段,完成下列题目。(12分)

  船头坐三人,中峨冠而多髯者为东坡,佛印居右,鲁直居左。苏、黄共阅一手卷。东坡右手执卷端,左手抚鲁直背。鲁直左手执卷末右手指卷如有所语。东坡现右足,鲁直现左足,各微侧,其两膝相比者,各隐卷底衣褶中。佛印绝类弥勒,袒胸露乳,矫首昂视,神情与苏、黄不属。卧右膝,诎右臂支船,而竖其左膝,左臂挂念珠倚之。珠可历历数也。

  舟尾横卧一楫。楫左右舟子各一人。居右者椎髻仰面,左手倚一衡木,右手攀右趾,若啸呼状。居左者右手执蒲葵扇,左手抚炉,炉上有壶,其人视端容寂,若听茶声然。

  其船背稍夷,则题名其上,文曰“天启壬戌秋日,虞山王毅叔远甫刻”,细若蚊足,钩画了了,其色墨。又用篆章一,文曰“初平山人”,其色丹。

  通计一舟,为人五;为窗八;为箬篷,为楫,为炉,为壶,为手卷,为念珠,各一;对联、题名并篆文,为字共三十有四。而计其长,曾不盈寸。盖简桃核修狭者为之。嘻,技亦灵怪矣哉!

小题1:解释下列划线词的意思。(4分)

(1)其两膝相者(     )        (2)神情与苏、黄不(     )

(3)其船背稍 (     )        (4)盖桃核修狭者为之 (     )

小题2:下列句子中与例句“若听茶声然”的“然”解释相同的一项( )(3分)

A.烨然若神人          

B.父利其然也,日扳仲永环谒于邑人

C.虽然,公输盘为我为云梯

D.然而不胜者,是天时不如地利也小题3:翻译下面句子。(2分)

其人视端容寂,若听茶声然。 

小题4:文中的“横卧一楫”对表现核舟的主题有什么作用?(3分)

单项选择题